Mainstream Media Reports Vets Only Able To Confirm 224 Pets Died In Pet Food Recalls


Here we go again. First it was 16 deaths, and now it’s 224 deaths. Even though there have been 17,000 complaints to the FDA reporting pet food deaths, the numbers reported by the mainstream media continue to minimize the significance of the pet food recalls and how many pets and pet owners were affected.

At first, the media reported that only 16 deaths were confirmed. As pet owners, we all knew that this number was completely off and there were reports from pet owners of thousands of pets getting sick and dying from contaminated pet food.

Now, MSNBC, Reuters and other media outlets are reporting that only 224 pet deaths from the pet food recalls have been confirmed by veterinarians. They reference a Michigan State University study that the AVMA publicized. (Itchmo posted about this study on November 21.)

The news media reported that only 348 cases of pet sickness met the criteria for kidney failure caused by the contamination — 235 cats and 112 dogs.

(Stop right there. How does 235 plus 112 equal 348? In my world and I think everyone else’s word, that should add up to 347. In actuality, the MSU study found 347 cases and not 348 cases that met diagnostic criteria for “pet food-induced nephrotoxicity.” Hmm… someone needs a math lesson or needs to fact check, perhaps? Also, according to the MSU survey, they confirmed 226 deaths and not the 224 deaths that you reported. 143 fatal cases for cats and 83 fatal cases for dogs.)

The media also reported that Wilson Rumbehia, who worked on the MSU study, said, “It is easy to think that every death or every sickness is occurring because of the pet food problem.” In a Reuters article, the author wrote, “But when strict criteria were applied, it appears that far fewer deaths could be blamed on the pet food.”

The numbers in the MSU study were collected from April 5 through June 6. The research team is now analyzing numbers from vets that submitted cases through October.

Even in the press release from Michigan State University, they stated that more than 300 dogs and cats may have died from the recalls. They stated, “A survey, commissioned by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians and designed and implemented by Michigan State University toxicologists, has found that more than 300 dogs and cats may have died earlier this year as a result of eating contaminated pet food.”

Oh, numbers, schnumbers… what’s the difference right? Wrong. Thousands of pets died and whether it’s 1, 16, 224, 226 or 10,000, it should be significant that innocent pets died simply by eating their food.

Mainstream media, let’s focus on what we can do to ensure the safety of our pets, our children and ourselves instead of minimizing the significance of the pet food recalls. Talk to readers here on Itchmo, Pet Connection, or any other pet site and they will tell you how extremely significant this pet food recall is and how it has changed all of our lives.

We will never forget the thousands of pets that died, and we will continue to fight for the safety of our pets and not allow our innocent pets to have died in vain.

Source: MSNBC, Reuters, MSU Press Release

(Thanks 2CatMom)

40 Responses to “Mainstream Media Reports Vets Only Able To Confirm 224 Pets Died In Pet Food Recalls”

  1. Lynn says:


    It wasn’t that the FDA could only confirm 16 deaths. They simply confirmed 16 deaths and decided to go no further, since that was apparently enough to tell them they had a problem. So, if they HAD investigated all the complaints, they more than likely would have attributed way more than 16 to contaminated food.

    I think the numbers are sadly understated, perhaps due to labs being swamped, insufficient evidence, etc., etc. And let’s not forget that for months the labs didn’t know what they were looking for. By the time they figured it out, much of the evidence was gone.

  2. Lynn says:

    So in the end, I believe that their study was incomplete.

    To this day I believe that the number of deaths directly attributable was somewhere in excess of 3000.

    I also believe that if the Associated Press and other broadcast and print media didn’t stick to their guns in reporting the horribly low figure, more people would have paid attention faster. The news media really let us down terribly. And it’s because of their decision to stick with the low number that few people who COULD have made a difference, actually bothered to be concerned.

  3. JustMe says:

    BS! It is my understanding that this “study” was only from veterinarians that chose to participate. They didn’t go around and poll every single vet. Aren’t these only preliminary results?

    See Dr. Powers’ comment (from the same report) “mortality rate NOT LIKELY” to be representative of all cases”

    Dr. Barbara Powers, AAVLD president and director of the Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, said the survey probably found only a percentage of the actual cases. She said the mortality rate is not likely to be representative of all cases, however, because survey respondents had more information to submit for animals that died.

  4. Lynn says:

    If you look at the pie chart, too, it states from “April to June 2007″ - now we KNOW it was a partial study.

    Also, check this out!

  5. Lynn says:

    And with all these vet conventions has anyone grabbed the bull by the horn and created one “Early Warning” website where all vets are informed immediately of any potential epidemic? Has anyone done anything to improve the communications?

    After all this have we progressed backwards???

  6. Nora and Rufus says:

    Yet another propaganda article that is probably funded somehow by the special interests of the fat cats of commercial pet food manufacturing. What is the most sickening is that so many people, who never had a clue to begin with, will base their conclusion on this most inacurate study. Makes me want to barf. LIES, LIES, LIES.

  7. Larry Sheldon says:

    A question:

    We work one morning to find one of our elderly (and possibly diabetic) cats in serious poor shape (”Cal is dying!” was my wife’s cry). We rushed him to the emergency vet’s and from the preliminary examination came a long list of tests to find out what was really wrong.

    Given is advanced age (15 years, give or take), poor condition as he lay there, and our limited finances, we electe to “let him go”–put him down.

    Several days later the news becan to leak out about the poisoned food.

    Now, to be sure, we don’t know if there might have been poisoned food in the house before his death–there certainly could have been, but we didn’t find any when we checked some days after he was dead and gone (and our other elderly cat is still with us).

    But to my unschooled eye, his final hours were consistent with kidney failure.

    But we didn’t know to have further tests done to see if he ad been poisoned–we trusted the manufacturers.

    Are any of the studies accounting for the pets that died before the truth leaked out?

  8. Lynn says:

    Mr. Sheldon:

    In my opinion the studies don’t even account for what happened AFTER the truth leaked out. Only a very small fraction of the vets even bothered to answer the questionnaire, as I understand it.

    Many people will recall that many months slipped by before the truth came to pass and during this time many of the vets didn’t even know what action to take. Theirs is one of the worst systems of professional communication on the face of this earth. And that’s a bloody shame in this day of electronics and internet.

  9. Klondike says:

    John Edwards still has one of the higher estimates on his web site.

    “March 2007: An estimated 3,500 pets died after eating pet food contaminated with melamine in China”

  10. Cathy says:

    First of all, the media has no business reporting numbers when they can’t count. If they wanted to report the truth, they should have reported the WHOLE truth. How many members are in AMVA, how many were contacted for this study, how many responded, how many deaths were ignored because of the ’strict’ criteria’ they used. If only 5% of the membership responded, and they feel that’s enough to get a reliable estimate, then do the math. Closer to 5,000 dead animals.

    In addition, what ’strict criteria’ did they use in June and is that still a correct assumption knowing now that there was more than melamine and CA in the food.

    “It is easy to think that every death or every sickness is occurring because of the pet food problem.” In a Reuters article, the author wrote, “But when strict criteria were applied, it appears that far fewer deaths could be blamed on the pet food.”

    This author is an a$$. Yes, it’s real EASY to think formerly healthy, and sometimes young, animals got sick or died from toxic food, because they did! Maybe he/she needs to do 5% of the research that many pet owners have done and see if that changes his/her narrow mind.

  11. Carol says:

    Why does the press pick this half a$$ study up when they should be covering the fact that there are still problems with pet food and sick animals………….Even to the untrained eye this study is bogus—–my vet was never contacted by anyone about this—what a joke—–who funded this study the PFI??? Or maybe the FDA??? I think some are trying to tie this up in a neat little package and put it away so we can move on to buying products unsafe for our pets and then blaming Easter lilies in February!!!! I am so mad————-that’s why I have only begun to make trouble with my big mouth and my poisoned food!

  12. Carol says:

    This story is based on ONLY 500 responses! I bet there are more than 500 just here at Itchmo with pets that had acute renal failure between Nov and March15!!!

  13. Carol says:

    And I forgot to say while I was reading the story at MSNBC a coupon for Iams appeared for me to print! I could scream.

  14. Sharon says:

    I don’t trust any “studies” done anymore. The dumbing down of the American educational system has meant that most people don’t even know what the scientific method of research is. It is easy to feed bullshit to people when they are uneducated and unable to think for themselves.

  15. Jenny Bark says:

    I agree with all of you, especially Nora & Rufus. Imo it is nothing but pr, what would be interesting to find out is how much $$$ they got paid somewhere along the line. The pfi & fda are sure using their power but I’m not buying any of it. I just feel bad for the people who are.

  16. Abby Kelleyite says:

    In the AVMA’s much better news item on the survey, they included the following caution that made it clear that the survey does not purport to have counted all cases:

    Dr. Barbara Powers, AAVLD president and director of the Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, said the survey probably found only a percentage of the actual cases.

  17. Sandi K says:

    At MSU’s website, they have e:mail addresses to the two who wrote this information: and . I wrote to them this morning, others might want to do the same.

  18. Sandi K says:

    Abby, Im glad that AVMA’s website says that however that is not what is being portrayed to the public by these two MSU people. Its just another slap in the face to pet parents who had a pet become ill or die as a result. A good majority of the pets died before the recall so there was no way to perform tests. In our case, we just happened to have had leftover food in the garage and a cat who had all the symptoms of poisoning. Also in the beginning only bloodwork was being performed by vets and it was only found later that a urinalysis showed the problem whereas many times the bloodwork didnt show anything. Im sure MSU’s criteria only included proof via blood or urine therefore many vets would not have even responded to that survey because that proof was impossible to obtain from a pet who died long before. The survey as far as I know is not available to the public nor is the criteria they set. Its a flawed and inaccurate survey and should be retracted or an amendment should be issued with all the facts about what their survey DIDNT include. They also dont indicate how many pets will still die as a result of the tainted food later in life. It will happen and unfortunately those pets will also not be counted as its obvious that pet food companies, FDA, PFI, etc want this to go away and the future ramifications be buried.

    Fortunately, the ramifications for Menu Foods are still showing, their stock was at $0.92 this morning, another all time low.

  19. Anonymous says:


    “With any poison, it’s the amount that matters.” said Dr. Wilson Rumbeiha, a Michigan State University pathologist who is working with the FDA on the pet food contamination investigation. His lab has screened for acetaminophen but found none, he said.

    The highest level of acetaminophen found by the Texas lab — 2 milligrams per gram of dog food — is a large amount, Rumbeiha said. That is eight times what a 10-pound cat could safely consume, he said.

    However, a 20-pound dog would have to eat more than 6.5 pounds of food in 24 hours to be poisoned, unless it ate the same contaminated food daily, Rumbeiha said.
    Yes, the pets tended to eat the SAME DIET OF POISONED FOOD EVERY DAY!

    Since the study title says “NORTH AMERICA,” can 500 responses be considered representative of the ENTIRE CONTINENT of NORTH AMERICA?

    Were there 500 vets who responded or 500 individual cases submitted, by say, 25 vets?????

    Just in my little hick town alone, there are over a dozen vets!

    In 2001, there were OVER 50,000 PRACTICING VETS in the U.S.
    U.S. Veterinarians in August 2001

    45,115 Total in private practice

    8,792 Public and Corporate

    Break down here:
    I didn’t see any extrapolation, even conservatively, to more accurately count the number of pet deaths and illnesses?

    Let’s see, if there were 500 responses and 347 cases met the criteria for “pet food-induced nephrotoxicity,” there are 50,000+ vets in practice across the U.S.

    Now my fellow researchers, how could we possibly extrapolate to arrive at a more accurate count of pet deaths and illnesses from 500 responses? You can even allow for states with the higher rates of deaths and illnesses and those states with fewer deaths and illnesses.

    If MSU confirmed 226 pet deaths… a one hundred-fold increase (from 500 responses to the AAVLD survey to the 50,000+ practicing vets in the U.S.) would lead us to believe there were ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 22,000 PET DEATHS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

    And, that’s DEATHS, NOT counting ILL PETS that didn’t die.

    Now, let’s look at notifying vets that data for a survey was even being collected … if vets had Internet access, if they kept their email address updated, if vets happened to be a member of a professional organization that ran the call for submission of data, if there were a uniform method for contacting every vet in the U.S. at once, if there were a center monitoring for patterns in illnesses & deaths, if tech labs saved urine and tissue samples more than the required days, if it had been requested in advance that the tissue samples be saved…

    If, if, if…

    Only a two-month data collection period.

    Pets were dropping dead like flies in the winter months. (Sorry about the image… My dog is included in the uncounted masses.) Vets were baffled, didn’t know what to suspect (except the same recurring question: did pets ingest antifreeze?), didn’t know what to look for, or what to do.

    THOSE are the cases that should have had paperwork and tissue samples reviewed. Check back in the vets’ and labs’ records from November ‘06 (or before) through March ‘07.

    Think of all the vets that did not see the call for study participation, didn’t want to take the time to do a survey and submit paperwork, the ones that “didn’t want to be involved,” the cases that were simply tossed out of the count because the animals had a another chronic/concurrent illness, the animals that were too far gone to try to save, the pets that never saw a vet because the owners couldn’t afford it, the animals that died and didn’t have autopsies.

    Think of the deaths that were reported instead to the FDA, state veterinary groups, tech. labs, vet teaching hospitals, etc., and you’ll find data that was widely scattered and reported to numerous agencies and groups, with NO CENTRALIZED METHOD FOR REPORTING, CONSOLIDATING, AND ASSESSING THE TRUE MAGNITUDE OF THE POISONINGS.

    Read the call for submissions on the site to see the various ways/places to report information. Is anyone confused? If you were a vet with a busy practice trying to save the lives of numerous poisoned pets, would you focus your energies on saving the pets or spending your time trying to navigate through the “hows” and “wheres” to report?

    And, look at just one ingredient that was contaminated, corn gluten, in one BRAND of dog food in South Africa, and 30 DOGS WERE CONFIRMED DEAD. Hmmm. And how many brands and products were recalled in the U.S.? And how many ingredients were fingered? Glutens, meals, flours, concentrates… who knows? The FDA didn’t even know it was actually looking at WHEAT FLOUR till weeks after the fact.

    Does anyone really think only a few hundred pets died across the country?
    The entire theme of the pet food MASSIVE poisonings since March has been

    Downplay. Downplay. Downplay.

    Sweep the mass poisoning under the rug.

    Try to rewrite history.

    Lull the public into a stupor of safety and trust… All is well.

    Now, blind sheep… believe that the PFI is watching out for your pets and go restock your pantry with newly re-designed packages and cans of

    Anyone remember this March 30th quote from the FDA’s Stephen Sundlof when asked at a press conference if people could still be feeding poisoned food:

    “It is possible, but I think we’ve been following every lead that we can. My sense is that we have gotten most of it under control.”

    (That was March 30th, folks. And, this is the “Year of the Recalls.”)

    Pardon me while I portion out a lunch of cooked organic beef heart, rice and carrots for my puppies. Oh, my cat with 70% SUDDEN kidney loss (whose kidney values improved somewhat after IV fluid therapy) also loves beef heart! Tell me my cat did not get poisoned by the food and that my dead dog didn’t die of poisoned food as well.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Wilson K. Rumbeiha is the founder and CEO of a corporation called the Clinical Toxicology Consultants International:

    Dr. Wilson K Rumbeiha
    President and CEO, CTCI
    1828 Yosemite Dr.
    Okemos, MI 48864

    So, my question is — Did Wilson Rumbeiha conduct the survey as an independent scientist at MSU?

    Or was Wilson’s corporation, CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL (CTCI Corp.), his corporation, hired to conduct the survey?

    …Just asking because I didn’t see any info posted in the articles.

    Rumbeiha is also listed on the zoom info - business website

  21. Sandi K says:

    Hey Anony, you should write to these two people at MSU. You have some really valid points that should be expressed to them.

  22. Abby Kelleyite says:

    Sandi, I am with you on being disgusted at the spin being put on the survey results as evidenced in MSU’s announcement and the Reuters item that everybody picked up. The AVMA reported on this much better over a week ago, but no mainstream media picked it up. The survey results are useful for veterinarians in understanding how to diagnose the problem and the number of cases meeting diagnostic criteria at least establish a floor higher than the 16 cases confirmed by FDA, but the MSM seems to be running with the storyline that veterinarians have only been able to confirm a couple hundred cases, which as Dr. Powers pointed out in the AVMA piece was not what the AAVLD survey said.

  23. Carol says:

    I wish Dr Rumbeiha would come test my food—-at a facility that can test at 0.1 ppm as he could find it then! I continue to scream that I have more food that postitive for acetaminophen and no one is paying attention except pet owners that know about it!!! I am so sick of hearing no acetaminophen in food—how did it get in my factory sealed packets—magic? I’m getting together an email and I’ll post a copy here!

  24. Skijour says:

    Oh for @*$%^&! 16 deaths were for THE ANIMALS DYING IN MENU FOODS FEEDING TRIALS! That was after the company received reports of pets dying, after Iams said they were pulling food because of their own internal quality control, and probably before the CFO dumped stock.

    As for main stream media, all those companies should be stripped of the privilege of using the *public* airwaves. We need the bandwidth for disaster coordination anyway. I don’t know what they’re saying on TV any more because I finally got fed up and cut my cable back in January. Saved a bundle. It was an adjustment at first, but the wasted time is now put to good use working an organic garden and canning/freezing my own fruits and vegetables.

    Instead of watching TV with breakfast, I call the 800 numbers on purchased food boxes and quiz the companies on where their food is raised and processed. I haven’t bought any non-organic meat since the melamine-contaminated pigs were discovered in Stockton, and avoided farm-raised fish even before knowing melamine made it into fish food. I make it very clear to all the companies that I won’t BUY their product anymore unless it is organic and can be sourced back to the farm where it came from.

    I do all this in memory of my dog, my brother’s cat, and the countless other animals who will never be counted because they died before we knew anything was wrong; before we even knew pet food companies had put American companies out of business in favor of doing business with poisoners in China. To save a few cents a can. I WOULD HAVE PAID A FEW CENTS A CAN FOREVER. But now, if I can bring myself to get another pet, and it will be a LONG time before I can think about it, I WILL COOK FOR IT AND NEVER GIVE A RED CENT TO ANOTHER PET FOOD COMPANY AGAIN!

    I haven’t trusted the FDA since their pathetic performance over this whole fiasco. Yes, I know they have budget problems and aren’t tasked with the animal equivalent of the CDC. BUT THAT DOESN’T EXCUSE THE COVER-UP AND LIES they fed us when they could have told us Who What When Where & How. Who received shipments, What were the suspected ingredients, What tests were being run, What the results were, What those results meant, When the ingredients were imported & distributed, Where the contaminated ingredients originated from, Where the ingredients were being used, and How we could protect ourselves and our pets until the investigation was complete and the results known.

    There wasn’t a trace of science coming from the FDA; I’d have flunked my first science paper my first year in college if I’d written anything as badly supported as the PC BS they spewed. It made no sense, from beginning to end. The reporters are either colluding or idiots to regurgitate the mess and call it news.

  25. Pukanuba says:

    I wonder who paid for that study…….hmmmm, let me try to guess……..

  26. Abby Kelleyite says:

    For anyone who is interested, the Wikipedia article has some info on various estimates of the affected number of animals including links to the AVMA’s report on the AAVLD survey and the AAVLD’s own proceedings.

  27. Katie says:

    I agree with you all and Pukanuba you hit the nail on the head -who paid for the study.

    I believe there were pets dying and getting sick long before March 2007 due to poisoned food. And, we all know how the FDA handeled the recalls from April onwards. Most vets to this day, do not have all the information re: recalls. I know of one vet practice here where 3 kitties died in two days and three more were IV’d, and none of these were reported cases.

    This study sounds like more PR spin to make the pet food companies look good and complaining pet parents look bad. And since NBC (MSNBC) and P&G have gone together on starting and maintaining a new website for more PR spin…..
    why doesn’t it surprise me that MSNBC would not endorse or promote the real numbers; instead they listen to some half baked incomplete, full of loop holes study.

    It is still all about money.


  28. Sandi K says:

    I received a reply to my chewing out e:mail from Mr. Rumbeiha. While I dont agree with how they portrayed the numbers, (which he said was not his intention) told him that is how it was portrayed to the media and that this has been an on-going problem with the recall, the media lessening the severity of the tragedy. One thing he is considering is doing a long-term study of the affects of the poison ingestion and how its affecting pets that are still alive. This is something we all here have wanted done. I told him I could direct him to many people here that have pets that are alive and dealing with the effects of the poisoning. So we will see if anything happens but to me, it would be one positive thing in this whole nightmare. If it could possibly help even one pet that is still alive, it would be great.

  29. Sandi K says:

    Also, I proposed that he involve pet parents in this long term study and that perhaps Itchmo and Pet Connection could help get him in touch with those people. He said he will consult with his colleagues and get back to me.

  30. Carol says:

    Sandi K—-
    if you’re the sandi at the forums could you PM me. I would like to get in touch with you!

  31. Sandi K says:

    Carol, I just PM’d you!

  32. Kate says:

    I had a small cat rescue during this tragedy. I had 3 die from the their food. I just had to euthanize two on Wednesday that were battling kidney failure and fluids and meds were no longer working. I have 8 cats left that are suffering from kidney issues and now have to live in two rooms of the house because they cannot control their kidneys or pee outside of the box when prior to this, they had no issues. It was not only the money spent to vet these cats but what about ongoing care for fluid replacement, special foods and removing carpeting or remodeling rooms so that I do not have to euthanize all of them. I have been in rescue since the 80s and as far as I am concerned, I will never feed Iams or Nutro again. You think you are doing what is right and providing a ‘quality’ food source. I might as well have been feeding special kitty for all the good that it did. What about cats that prior to this did not have crystals or frequent blockage and now they suffer from this ailment. It is a case of the government once again twisting things to their advantage and down playing the truth.

  33. Don Earl says:


    “From its findings, Banfield officials calculated an incidence rate of .03 percent for pets, although there was no discernible uptick among
    dogs. That suggests the contamination was overwhelming toxic to cats, Lewis said. That is in line with what other experts have said

    The Banfield data is the most statistically meaningful information available, and calculated 39,000 “cats” were affected by poisoned food. It is especially interesting to note that Banfield saw “no discernible uptick among
    dogs” - this is from a 1 million pet statistical universe. For those familiar with statistics theory, a sample that large would make the margin of error so small as to be conclusively zero.

    As hard as it may be to believe, by even the better informed pet owners, dogs were virtually unaffected by the recall. Any numbers that include a large percentage of dogs should automatically be considered flawed.

    The AAVLD “study” is so hopelessly skewed as to amount to nothing more than pet food company propaganda. It started out as shameless cherry picking of cases, which were then hopelessly manipulated to support this bogus excuse for a study.

    It’s also interesting to note the fraudsters at UCD didn’t include any dogs in their bogus study. My guess is such a study would show dogs are equally affected by the melamine/cyanuric acid cocktails they cooked up, which would have blown the melamine from China hoax out of the water, since dogs were virtually unaffected by the recall.

    In other words, a substance equally toxic to cats and dogs can’t account for what we know happened. A substance toxic to cats, but not to dogs, such as acetaminophen, is required to fit the evidence.

  34. Kate says:

    And by the way,,, I still have some of the food that was recalled, so it was not a case of maybe…. It was a case of ‘we tested the food and it was bad!’

  35. Lynn says:

    Hmmmm, wouldn’t it be something if the study was paid for by a USG grant?

  36. Don Earl says:

    RE: “And by the way,,, I still have some of the food that was recalled, so it was not a case of maybe…. It was a case of ‘we tested the food and it was bad!’”

    Just curious, was any of the food ever tested for acetaminophen?

    If it wasn’t, and if you have any unopened cans of Nutro available, I’d be interested in working with you to get some run through the lab at ExperTox.

  37. Katie says:

    Cats may have been affected in larger numbers but I know my dog had problems with her food. I know when I mentioned this on a few breed lists that I’m a member of - others had problems with the same food. Dogs were sick. Dogs were drinking excessive amounts of water, bloated, and in pain. Dog owners switched food or put dogs on bland diets. I think that dog owners had more options available for switching foods than what cat owners had available to them. It seems that Menu foods was making the bulk of the cat foods. But my dogs food and several others were not Menu food produced.

    Don, I still think either there are a variety of toxins or the toxin was in a common additive to all cat and dog foods. Maybe the condition of the animal, age or immune system was a factor in how sick the pet was. I keep hearing that acetaminophen is not toxic to dogs? Than what made the dogs sick?

    I keep “kicking myself” thinking - why didn’t I suspect the food the end of March and keep it for testing.


  38. Don Earl says:

    RE: “Don, I still think either there are a variety of toxins or the toxin was in a common additive to all cat and dog foods. Maybe the condition of the animal, age or immune system was a factor in how sick the pet was. I keep hearing that acetaminophen is not toxic to dogs? Than what made the dogs sick?”

    It isn’t that acetaminophen is nontoxic to dogs, it’s more that a dose that would make a dog sick will kill a cat outright. I also agree there may have been a number of substances involved. It’s also possible melamine, or cyanuric acid, or both made the acetaminophen more toxic.

    Where the Banfield data comes in is the increase of cases that showed up as full blown renal failure was for all practical purposes limited exclusively to cats. I’m not saying dogs were completely unaffected, or even ruling out that some dogs may have died, but that a study skewed to the point of including a third dog deaths has to be completely bogus when viewed in the light of the Banfield data.

    The criteria for the study was goofy right out of the gate. It was specifically targeted at collecting poor, incomplete, easily manipulated data - then got worse from there.

  39. Jenny Bark says:

    Besides pr & to fool people this stupid lie of a study would not have anything to do with helping the pfi with all their law suits that have not come to court yet?

    Would this lie of a study help the FDA that people are now seeing them in such a bad light?

    After all isn’t the FDA & PFI really honest with the American people?

    Just me thinking.

  40. patskitties says:

    all I want to know is who will pay for the pain and suffering of my kitty Smokey he passed away last week of kidney damage, 7yrs old, he was patr of the famil I miss he so much……….

E-mail It