Canidae Denies Pet Food Contains Acetaminophen
Canidae has denied that its pet food products contain acetaminophen, in response to a ConsumerAffairs.com article. Although the company is still waiting the results from the pet food products they sent in to be tested.
Expertox, a Texas lab, claimed they found acetaminophen in a mixed dog food sample. The dog owner who sent in the food for testing identified the sample as Canidae dog food on Expertox’s forms.
Canidae has cast doubt over the accuracy of Expertox’s findings of acetaminophen in a Ziploc bag of mixed dog food identified as Canidae dog food.
“There is one report by one unconfirmed laboratory that has given rise to these claims,†wrote company spokesman Jim Mantych. “That same laboratory also claimed acetaminophen contamination in other products that the FDA and the laboratory at the University of California examined as well and as to which those laboratories found that the claims could not be validated.â€
Mantych also: “We do not put acetaminophen in our products in any way, shape or form, nor is it used in any of our ingredients.â€
He also said the company is taking the allegations seriously and have already sent samples of their products to be tested.
Expertox’s lab manager, Donna Coneley, confirmed the lab detected acetaminophen in the dog food, but stated the report did not specify the amount of acetaminophen found in the sample.
Since the sample was received in a Ziploc bag, Expertox cannot confirm the sample is a Canidae dog food.
Coneley also stated: “It’s easier to say that we can’t confirm something by looking at a few samples than to really investigate and continue investigating until you know something for sure.”
The FDA was contacted regarding Expertox’s findings and a spokesman said the agency is looking into the matter.
Source: Consumer Affairs
(Thanks menusux)
September 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Say, that IS good news. And now that the only lab which will test food for pet owners has had it’s reputation throughly besmirched by the same clowns, the FDA, who can’t count, well, matter closed. No need to have any more food tested, the mighty FDA is ON THE CASE!
This is bound to be a great relief to all the Canidae brand evangelists. Though I am sure there will be much excruciating detailed debate about lot numbers and best by dates and how the testing was done. Did the FDA and the labs that did the testing specify what testing procedure they used? Which machines? Names and social security numbers of those doing the testing?
Did Canidae use proper chain of custody procedure?
And wasn’t there some extended debate on the grants given by ,surprise, surprise, pet food companies to the lab Canidea and the FDA used?
September 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
E, where in the forums is your peice about the plastic in the food? I can’t find it? thanks,
September 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Problems with pet food section,
http://tinyurl.com/34dd67
September 9th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I hope Expertox sues everyone who has tried to sully its reputation.
OK. I can’t find it right now. Homemade (of course!) dog cookies to the first person who can pull up the link concerning the $500,000 grant the University of California at Davis received. It was connected to a pet food company, I believe.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
well here is what I found Purringfur:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/.....fm?id=1357
Is this the one your were talking about?
September 9th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
purringfur
For all I know the class action bloodsuckin…er..lawyers..yeah that is the PC word, lawyers, are having wet dreams about this mess and the lawsuits that are springing up like poison toadstools after an acid rain.
Though toadstools soaked in cyanide might be better nutrition that some of the products these pet food companies make. Just saying.
I hope by the time this fiasco hits the courts every juror is just itching to give the guilty party’s a lesson in how tired they are of the worship of big corporations and the ad campaigns that are so insulting.
The class action bloodsuckers are sure not doing much to earn the big bucks as far as I can tell. And before anyone gets all weird, hell NO, I am not a party to a class action thing. Like I am gonna put up with years of delay and make some bloodsucker rich to get a 5 dollar coupon for the pet food that killed my pets. Which is how most class action lawsuits end up.
If a class action lawyer was REALLY looking to get justice for their clients (hah-fat chance) their butts would be here, helping to get food tested and making use of the research done by people that won’t cost them a dime. But that won’t get the bloodsuckers or their buddies any way to justify the millions in “costs” that come off the top of the settlement. Several decades down the road.
Just one more way to screw over pet parents is what class action lawsuits are in my opinion.
Though there were PLENTY of post looking for clients at one point.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The ones who have had their reputations sullied are those reputable pet food companies who do a good job and have a good product yet are targeted by smear campaigns and fear mongering. They get sucked into defending themselves at great expense and no matter what the proof, those bent on smearing them will continue on and on and on. And, of course, some simple folk are gullible enough to fall for it. Some people just love the drama.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hill’s is the doner to UCD. There’s a link on my site in the lab section.
UCD also receives about $14 million from Homeland Security.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no University veterinary programs that do not receive funding from pet food companies. It’s standard practice to train vets not to believe pet food is ever a source of illness in pets.
For the record, neither the FDA nor UCD ever tested samples known to have tested positive for acetaminophen.
This food was tested twice by ExperTox and acetaminophen was identified both times. Once as a composite with another brand, and again as Canidae only. Well, for the record, allegedly Canidae only.
I’ve worked extensively with ExperTox on a variety of tests, including sending them experimental samples to verify their ability to identify acetaminophen in food. Their equipment does accurately detect acetaminophen. If they say it’s there, it is because it is there. The only issue with their results I have been able to identify is they miss more than they find. Negative results are not 100% reliable and quantities are low due to a lack of a protocol to completely separate acetaminophen from the food.
Acetaminophen is only slightly soluable in water and it tends to bind to fats and protein. The end result is it’s difficult to extract for quantity purposes and it is not evenly distributed throughout the food, making representative samples impossible to obtain.
What Canidae is essentially claiming in their denial is that drilling one dry well in the Gulf of Mexico would prove there is no oil in the Gulf, regardless of what other drillers have found.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I, for one, would be HAPPY to see an end to the drama and EVERY pet food company in this country has had 6 freaking months to stand up and do the right thing.
Starting with- getting the news out about the poison symptoms.
- standing up for the TRUTH about the death toll.
- calling for decent standards, even if it means government regulation of an outlaw industry.
- testing and publishing test results.
- resigning, publicly, from the PFI and disavowing all insulting statements made by Duane
-making public statements that vet bills should be paid, as promised, by the companies that sold poison labeled as premium pet food.
-calling publicly for the accounting of the staggering costs to pet parents
-and most of all, calling publicly for apologies to all those pet parents who have endured not only the death and sickness of pets but months and months of lies and insults and cover -up.
Anytime, any time at all, any pet food company could have done those things and earned a rock solid base of loyal customers and the praise and respect of many, many people. Not to mention a market share beyond all dreams of greed that Gordon Gekko ever had.
Until a pet food company does some of those things, you know, shows a bit of respect for the people who pay the bills?, then they can go down the drain with the rest.
And now that this has dragged on for 6 months?
No matter WHAT they do, they will be doing just a bit late.
Oh yeah, it was a DRAMA all right. It was a Greek Tragedy is what it was, still is and will remain until the RIGHT THING GETS TO A BIGGER PRIORITY THAN COVERING BUTT!
Hint- putting a big banner on your website saying that YOUR vaunted brand has not been involved in the recall, now that a lot of us KNOW recalls are a joke and voluntary is NOT doing the right thing.
It is just a brand specific butt cover and ask Blue Buffalo how that worked out for their arrogant CEO.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Very well stated, Don!
Don said: “What Canidae is essentially claiming in their denial is that drilling one dry well in the Gulf of Mexico would prove there is no oil in the Gulf, regardless of what other drillers have found.”
September 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
RUTH: Yes, that’s it. Email me. Are you in the continental U.S.? I can either send you some cookies, which I have frozen, or I can give you the recipe I use for my two pups if you’d like to make them yourself. Your choice.
Thanks, Don. I read the UC - Davis page.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
E,
While I share many of your views on class actions, in the interest of fair play, I believe there are factors most folks forget to consider.
Members of a class do not pay one dime up front to join the suit.
In one case I’m familiar with, the firm spent over a quarter million dollars in the first month of litigation. That’s just the opening moves. From there on, it gets expensive.
If a firm loses a case, they lose everything. Period. The only way they can make up those loses is by winning other cases.
If not for class actions, most of those harmed would have no recourse whatsoever, and the guilty parties would get off Scott free. No big company would ever be held accountable, and no justice of any kind would ever take place.
It isn’t a perfect system and there is plenty of room for abuse. There is a lot to not like about the system, but we’d be in a lot worse shape if it wasn’t there at all.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
E. and Don Earl, I just found more plastic in the canned cat food. I took some pictures of it. It didn’t come out too good because I can’t zoom on something that small. But there were actually 5 pieces in this food. I’m totally discusted. What should i do now? And should I send the pic to Itchmo? Take it to My vet? I could scream.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Don, I just saw that a certain law firm had to repay millions in phony”costs” that they charged for a class action, so that is a step in the right direction.
The slap down they got for trying to fleece the clients was substantial.
And I am aware that this may be the ONLY way for some to get a lawsuit filed, but (edited for info that has been posted in private forums)
I do understand how the system should work, just wish it worked.
Willing to admit that there MIGHT be an honest class action lawyer somewhere in America, hard as it is for me to type the words honest and lawyer in the same sentence.
So far, the only sign I have seen of lawyers around here is scouting for clients and then POOF, they vanish. A few media releases by lawyers would have gone a long way in getting the news about the symptoms of the poison out there. But that did not happen.
I will be fair and say that it COULD happen that a class action lawsuit might do some good. Not holding my breath.
And will say no more here about the matter.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
“Did Canidae use proper chain of custody procedure?”
Talk about a double standard. The chain of custody procedure isn’t exactly pristine on the samples supplied for testing. Far from it. Even Epertox makes it perfectly clear in its report that it is only taking the word of those who supplied the sample for its origins.
“Epertox Laboratory can not verify that sample received is the actual product as described or noted by client unless it is received in an unopened, sealed, untampered can or bag.”
The report than states that such was definitely not the case here. The sample provided was in a ziploc bag and was a composite of two dry foods mixed by the client.
http://www.petfoodrecallfacts.com/canidae.jpg
And pointing out that this whole story has huge holes in it does not make someone an “evangelist.” What a straw man. This is about facts and not prejudices. There are those of us who want to know what the truth is, not what some want to make of it. People on this board want to protect their pets. Shouting down and ridiculing those who ask legitimate questions and blindly believing everything that supports your own world view before a proper investigation is complete only obscures the true problems in pet food.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Trudy, I do not have any idea what to do.
Good luck. john seems to think us “simple” easily fooled people should just drink the kool -aid and shut up.
Be careful , you could be called a fear monger.
Our pets are not really dead, they are taking dirt naps.
The sick ones are only sick because you are not spending enough on vet care.
Phoebe , I asked much the same questions that are asked of pet parents who pay for testing.
If it sounds like a brand evangelist and looks like a brand evangelist then I will call it an evangelist and that is considerably nicer than they get called on the private forums.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Don, good post as always. You are a beautiful light in the night. My offer still stands, you have my information.
What did anybody expect, most of us know what the pfi would do next. 40 billion $$$$$ for pfi and the FDA has most of the people in United States upset with them on their food & drugs from China, they are going to try and shut up any one they can. We all need to pray that ExperTox can hold their ground so we the people have somewhere to go. No matter what happens I will always home feed. I have no trust to do anything else.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
E., Oh no, you don’t get to give up! You said I couldn’t and you can’t either. And We all need you.
The cat I was feeding is 20, has no teeth, and now has bloody stools. When I take Her to the vet, I might also take this plastic.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Those that REALLY want the truth are not going to get it by chasing away people who are having food tested. I have spent hours coaxing and pleading that pet parents here need to know about some things and now , because of some things just done , she WON”T give me permission to post the results.
OK, that is TWO brands tested that I can’t post results on, real farking helpful.
Thanks a bunch ! I won’t even say that I hope your pets are eating the brand tested because I would not wish that on anyone but boy you tempt me to think it!
Trudy, I decided to take a break instead.
Go read some of the funny, very un PC and hateful stuff done with photoshop that just got emailed to me.
Thank God for friends. With wicked skills on the photoshop.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Phoebe is correct. Wouldn’t a proper chain of custody require the food in question be in an original and unopened package? I am not defending Canidae or any other company but lets get real. Two opened foods repackaged and sent together by someone who has others speaking for her does not a proper chain of custody make. I have eliminated all but about five ,small company , kibbles as even a possibility to feed. NO CANS at all in my home since March and the only biscuit is one I bake myself. However, jumping to conclusions without a complete picture will serve no one and change nothing.
PS Have never used Canidae in many, many years of dog ownership. Never considered it.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
From the beginning of testing by Expertox, the one thing that struck me each time is their total confidence and calmness in responding to those companies that challenge their findings. They don’t loudly defend or protest like their critics. It is so obvious to me that they have absolutely no fear of being challenged. They know their results are accurate. They are unwavering. I love that. And yes, I believe them.
The companies that rely on testing by other labs that in all probability have less sophisticated equipment and/or they don’t test below a certain minimum amount and/or receive millions of dollars in funding from you know who know damn well that they could never succeed in a legal challenge against Expertox. And Expertox knows this as well. They won’t sue Expertox because first they will never win and second it will confirm that Expertox results are correct.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Garyn from your words to God’s ear, I pray.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
why would any pet food company put acetamenophen in its food?
September 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Expertox found what it found but in what?
September 9th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
John, who the He!! knows. Do you? Maybe it is where it it sourced it’s ingredients from. Maybe It’s from way down the line. Who knows is only one of the questions. What I think is a more important question is why isn’t all this food checked & checked by the people making the profits? Why is the FDA working for the people instead of the companies? Why are igred, reducated when pets have died & gotten sick? I’m not going to respond to you anymore. Jenny
September 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
How would chain of custody require food to be in an unopened package? This food in an unopened package would have nothing to do with the food from the open package you had fed your pet. IMHO the chain of custody is the package you were using. If some one wanted to go out and buy a second package with matching numbers and have that tested also fine. I am having a food tested, one package did not have any production codes on it what so ever so how could I possily match it with another bag . I don’t give a hoot what the pet food companys say I am paying for the test and I’ll do it my way. I will test until I find all the answers as to what made my pets sick.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Well, who knows why I KEEP finding plastic in My cats food? If I missed any it might kill Her.
E, who said you couldn’t post results on food? I sure want to know what you found out. Do you want to Email Me privately?
I keep wondering if i should get this dog food tested that made my dog so sick? And is still on the market?
September 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Jenny, by not responding to me anymore you have answered one question for me…you are obviously not very openminded.
Thomas, I would think that if they test from an opened package it would leave to one’s imagination how the contaminant got in the product. In this day and age, people have been known to put fingers in chili, contaminate Tylenol and the like.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
There was a pet food manufacturer that found Acetaminophen that ExperTox tested. Here’s part to the article:
” The highest level of acetaminophen was found in a dog food sample submitted by a manufacturer, she said. Coneley declined to identify the company but said its officials were given the results “well over a month ago.”
“That company should have — but did not — notify the FDA, which first learned of the acetaminophen findings after pet owners posted lab reports on the Internet, Arbesfeld said.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/.....10984.html
So here we have a company that sent its own samples that came out positive. And they NEVER publicly disclosed their findings. So WHO was it?? And why would they use ExperTox since they pretty much don’t believe their test findings anyway?
That article has kept me wondering who it was. I guess people have forgotten about it.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
once a bag of product is opened and samples removed anyone can add anything they want to it -that’s why a concrete chain of custody is required.whether you like it or not everyone including companies have the right when accused to defend themselves and demand evidence that conforms to all legal proofs of authenticity.
what’s missing in all this fiasco of unanswered questions and swirling accusations is what a court requires to determine guilt-evidence that’s untampered with and carefully documented. i can send any old food to a lab in a zip lock bag and claim it was from manufacturer X- that doesn’t make it so. many people have axes to grind and apparently some are just satisfied with any victim who may have deep pockets. this isn’t justice and it doesn’t answer the most important basic questions of who ,what, where and why/how come?
in forensics, the same demands are made for blood and tissue samples to ensure their authenticity- from the crime scene to the lab( and while in the lab) has to be documented.if not, anyone can be framed after the fact by the planting of false samples. that’s not justice that’s expediency- blame anyone and forget about it. or it’s a smear campaign.
we want to find the actual culprit/s not crucify any pet food company we can get our hands on. it just isn’t fair. why would you not want the truth? why wouldn’t everyone be invested in a truth that would stop this from ever happening again? i personally am not content with any pet food company taking the axe to satisfy what’s basically bloodlust which while justified is only so in the face of the actual culprit. every company out there isn’t part of some grand evil conspiracy to kill pets and thus nonsensically deprive themselves of customers. but conspiracy theories seem to be the only way people can deal with any tragedy nowadays. i have no explanation for this but find it deeply disturbing and in violation of all the principles of sound reasoning and an unbaised outlook leading to exposing the truth. the rest is hysteria-sound and fury leading nowhere.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Precisely John! Though no one accuses here we all know people have been known to do a lot of strange things for as many strange reasons. My suggestion is stop using any food where there is even a hint of question but wait to see what the truth is at the same time. Hysteria is 100% non productive and so is jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
mittens, you are a welcomed voice of reason and common sense. thank you.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
you too sylvia. furthermore, if one doesn’t trust the commercial food for whatever reason, COOK IT YOURSELF OR FEED RAW and stop the fear mongering!
September 9th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The bottom line, for me, is that I’m just no longer willing to risk my pet’s health for the sake of a company’s reputation - or for my own convenience, for that matter. And if the folks from Canidae (and others) want to be angry with someone, they can take it up with the individuals at ChemNutra, Menu Foods, the FDA, et al.
Done. If I can’t eat it - and I have no cravings for dog kibble — *she’s* not going to eat it.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
John, you obviously don’t know mittens. Joke! Neither do I, actually.
And I am waiting and seeing, but I’m homecooking until my trust is justifiably restored. I just don’t know when that will be…
September 9th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Study, Journal of Animal Science, first published June 12, 2007:
Technical Note: “Detection of cat, dog, and rat/mouse tissues in food and animal feed using species-specific polymerase chain reaction”
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/conten.....type=HWCIT
September 9th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I stopped feeding Felidae (made by Canidae) about a month ago because my cats chin broke out in horrible feline acne. It is so bad that most of the hair on his chin is gone and he is scarred so I don’t now if it will grow back. I’m just so sick of having to change cat food brands because of the fact that everything is bad for my poor cat. I’ve had to switch foods three times. I’m now feeding CORE by Wellness, but knowing my luck, that will be the next recalled food or food with serious problem.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
mittens the blood and tissue samples are taken from people involved not from people not involved. I have food out being tested one package did not have product codes on it so I could not duplicate it by buying another package. I sent food from the packages that made my pets ill for test. It wasn’t an unopened package sitting on a store shelf. Chain of command means evidence involved not evidence not involved.
Send all the unopened packages you want to be tested and when the test comes back positive the pet food company can say oh well this package didn’t cause your pet problems because you didn’t feed it as the lab received it un opened. when people were sickened fom eating canned goods with salmonnela do you think the investigators used as evidence the empty cans in their trash or the investigators went to the store and bought and tested new cans? I am aware there maybe times when people have to go buy the same lot number and send it for tests as they no longer have the old package. I personnaly have my doubts as evidence like that would stand up in court.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
please notice I have not named what food I am having tested so how can that be called fear mongering? (it is not canidae)
September 9th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
also my statement above should read chain of custody not command.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
John,
I don’t believe they deliberately put acetaminophen in the food, but it may get into some of the raw ingredients at the point of origin.
And then it gets passed along through the manufacturing process and into the finished product.
It’s not detected in the food because PF companies don’t routinely test for it. As one of them told me “we don’t test for acetaminophen, because it’s not supposed to be there.”
This is not directed at Canidae in particular, but to the industry as a whole. I once worked in the industry and there is a dreadful lack of forward thinking quality control.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Mittens: I read your post and what you say about the absolute proof of unopened bags of food for testing. BUT, what about pet owners who only have whats left of food in containers with no id other than personal knowledge of what brand they bought.
I guess we are screwed in having it tested. Whats the use of having it stored in zipped locked bags. At the time my pet died I didn’t know I had to have an unopened bag to go along with it. The only proof I have is a dead pet buried in my backyard days before this nightmare started and blood tests from the Vet.
The only thing I would have to gain from it, would be the knowledge if it was toxic. And the PFI would still deny it. Whatever reason it doesn’t bring me any comfort, in the end my pet went from being healthy then sick and finally dead in a matter of a few short days.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Ruth said:
I guess we are screwed in having it tested. Whats the use of having it stored in zipped locked bags. At the time my pet died I didn’t know I had to have an unopened bag to go along with it. The only proof I have is a dead pet buried in my backyard days before this nightmare started…
Me too. March 4, 2007.
I honestly cannot imagine that those that are talking about fearmongering and hysteria (I haven’t seen that actually) have a dead pet buried in their backyard.
Her favorite toys and flowers now cover her grave. I am not hysterical. I am just really really still so pissed. A dip in honey and tied to a large red ant hill would not be enough punishment for those who killed my healthy five year old sweet sweet cat with willful blindness and without remorse or change in procedure… oops did I just say that out loud.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
There are probably other ways to establish a legitimate chain of evidence than mailing an unopened bag for which there won’t be much liability since the food wasn’t “used.” Perhaps presenting the unopened pet food bag to a notary public and noting that it was unopened, and then opening it in their presence and taking a ziplock sample from that now opened bag and then sealing the ziplock still in the presence of the notary, and then placing the baggie in a certified return receipted mailer and having the notary mail it. With a statement in hand from the notary that they observed the unopened bag, observed it being opened, observed a sample being taken by a means that could not add a contaminant, and then observed the sample sealed and placed in a mailer and then mailed in the presence of the notary. That would seem to provide a chain. Surely an attorney can come up with a similar methodology that establishes a legitimate chain of evidence while permitting the owner to feed from the same bag and thus establishing liability if there is a problem with the food. This isn’t mentioning any brand, just a methodology idea.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Just so you are aware - if you have a problem, issue, concern, or discovery with a pet food after you have opened the bag and you call the company, most likely they will tell you to send them a minimum of 1-2 cups or 2-4 cups of the dry kibble. They do not mention chain of evidence.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:17 am
The food I originally had tested was sent to ExperTox in unopened cans. The troll types immediately started talking about how I must have figured out a way to put acetaminophen in the can without opening it.
As someone pointed out upthread, at least one of the samples ExperTox found positive for acetaminophen was sent to them by a pet food company. What’s the troll position on that one? The company didn’t send it in an unopened bag?
The chain of custody is from the pet food company, to the retailer, to the customer, to the lab. Dry pet food does not come in sealed, single serving containers. People don’t buy multiple 50 pound bags of dry pet food with the same lot numbers so they’ll have spares to send to labs. People don’t send 45 pounds of the 50 pound bag to be tested. Then send a minimum sized sample that’s easy to mail. They aren’t trying to build an air tight legal case when they send in samples for testing. They’re trying to find out why their pets become ill or die.
When the tests come back positive for toxins, they don’t need a judge, jury and a battery of corporate lawyers to explain what killed their pets. They know.
In the mean time, ExperTox is continuing to find pet food contaminated with acetaminophen. I know there are others who have those results in hand and are afraid to share the results for fear of retaliation. The sad part is their fear insures someone else’s pets will be killed by their silence.
What is the worst that could happen by making those results available to others?
Would the pet food companies sue them for telling the truth, creating the kind of three ring media circus that would bring nationwide attention to a problem they have worked so hard to keep secret? Telling the truth is an absolute defense against libel.
If anyone reading this has information that could save the life of someone’s pet, I hope you will at least consider contacting me. I think I have a good track record for keeping confidences and no one has ever been bothered by pet food company trolls as a result of information they got from me.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Yes, if you have positive lab reports, please contact Don on his website:
http://www.petfoodrecallfacts.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Don- you’ve consistently put your neck on the line to gather information and give those receiving positive test’s a place to post results. Thank you.
The next step, as I see it, is for more food to be tested. This would appear to be the only way to force the industry to change their view of product safety.
From my way of thinking not only should tests be performed on foods that are suspected of causing illness, random tests should be conducted on unopened cans and bags of a variety of brands as time goes. If we could concentrate efforts in this area it could make all the difference.
If there is an responsible, established organization or group willing to act as a clearing house for those willing to donate funds toward this effort, let us know. I’ll do what I can to contribute, as I think many others will as well. We can do more to facilitate change for the better but the road will be much longer without your help.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Anonymous writes: “If there is an responsible, established organization or group willing to act as a clearing house for those willing to donate funds toward this effort, let us know.”
Clearly, this is the next step. Test the food, post the results, and the problem will begin to be solved.
Like the man said (sort of): We will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Donna, I don’t think sending the pet food company any samples will have any positve results in them testing it. After months of going back and forth with a certain company, they did tell me to send it in. But I didn’t feel any confidence that they would really do anything.
At this point I don’t believe anything they say. They (PFI) have continued to say their food is safe. Any trust I have for them is now gone just like my pet……..dead……. Why would I believe them?