Two or three of the toxins could have been in the water used to process. We know melamine was in the grain. It could also have been in the organ meat, if not muscle meat (still waiting to hear how those tests are going).

Aminopterin could have been in rendered lab animals or, well, yeah, lets not go there.

Factory workers in one plant (cleaning pork brain matter using air compressors) started displaying neurological symptoms in Dec. of 06′. No doubt just a coincidence there as well.

I don’t know if CAP has a check sample for acetominophen.

The thing that I find concerning is the mention of FDA guidelines or protoccol….. that means FDA is controling laboratory abilities for detection and amounts. Which sounds like it is dependent upon what big business wants, it might not be what good science wants.

As for menu foods - “samples within close proximity” does not clarify lot#,production run#,lot #’s of raw ingredients,etc.

Most companies keep samples frozen for quite a while. However the sample quality would be dependent upon how it is packaged,control temps. of freezer, etc. Knowing how Menu Foods handles the public and how money is everything - they don’t make me feel very trustful of them. I don’t trust them. It would just be nice to see a pfc come forward and be honest -

Don, “if you don’t look for something,you aren’t likely to find it”; and I feel the PFC don’t want to find it or have us find it. And, you are exactly right; there are no labs out there saying Expertox is a bad lab or uses bad science.

Katie

But I’ve never let go of the idea that in some cases aminopterin was involved. If you go back to the days when they were sure it was aminopterin that was the cause, you’ll note that the Univ. of Guelph originally found it as well as the NY lab and then later said they had not.

At that point I learned:
~ Not all equipment is the same, nor is it always calibrated correctly.
~ Not all testing protocols are the same.
~ If the scientist conducting the test finds that a toxin is in the sample, and if the amount of toxin found in the sample is less than the minimum criteria stated in the protocol, then the result is considered “negative” for the toxin. That doesn’t mean that the substance isn’t there - it just isn’t there in sufficient quanty to meet the protocol’s standard of measurement criteria. I’m sure this confused a lot of people.

Yes, Don Earl, Teri at AccuTrace [who subcontracted the samples to EperTox] mentioned that they freeze the sample for a while. But this is 7 months ago.

Carol’s right - I am sure we would all want the level of toxins to be zero. Particularly since we don’t know whether a miniscule level of toxin will have a synergistic reaction with another chemical.

The answer is probably yes and no on that one. There are a number of issues involved. First, they likely aren’t using the same protocols. Second, they’re limited to what can be done in a production lab. The machines only hold about a gram of food, so out of a 5.5 ounce can, or 155 grams, less than 1% of the sample is being tested. ExperTox mixes the whole sample first to reduce the potential for chemical hot spots, so the portion they actually test is more representative of the whole than if they just opened a can and dipped out a little bit.

Where the detection level really plays a part is acetaminophen tends to bind to the protein in the food. That makes it difficult to extract significant quanties from the food. So, let’s say there is 10 mg of acetaminophen in a can of food, which comes to a bit over 60 ppm, and which would be enough to build up to lethal levels in a pet constantly exposed to it over a period of days or weeks. If a lab is only able to extract 1% of the acetaminophen, or .6 ppm, the result is a false negative if the minimum detection level is at 1 ppm.

Like anything else, if you don’t look for something, you aren’t likely to find it.

It’s my understanding ExperTox keeps the samples they test for customers on hand, frozen, for six months. They also offer testing for aminopterin now, although I haven’t seen any report anyone has found it in pet food since the early report from the New York lab when it was first announced.

The aminopterin is still a mystery to me. It was confirmed by two other labs, and a number of folks I’ve been in contact with describe terrible birth defects during the recall period, which happens to be one of the nastier side effects of aminopterin. Apparently, the stuff is very unstable and degrades quickly in light, which might make it hard to find even for a lab that has a protocol for it.

I don’t doubt it was found in the food, but do I doubt we’ll ever get the truth on how it got there. One thing that has always bothered me is how two difficult to detect substances ended up in pet food at the same time.

Acetaminophen is also difficult to detect in pet food as, from what I understand, it tends to bind to protein, which makes it hard to extract and quantify.

On top of those two, there was also the melamine/cyanuric acid cocktail. Alone, the substances are for all practical purposes nontoxic. The two combine to form a third substance, which is also virtually nontoxic. But, if the recent UC Davis study has any merit, which I wouldn’t bet the farm on, the two fed together causes the reaction between the two that forms the third substance to take place in the kidneys.

So, you have two substances which are difficult to detect, and one two part toxin that is harmless until it’s mixed. I don’t want to get into any dark conspiracy theories, but it’s hard not to wonder how all three took place in the same time frame, and that the time period ran as long as it did, at epidemic proportions, without any response whatsoever for 4 months, followed by a several months long media misdirection campaign. Whether by accident or design, it’s scary either way.

Very funny! I just got your name!!! It did take me a while though……
Laughter is the best medicine—

.001

Like you, I did a lot of research into labs, though my aim was to have food tested BEFORE it was eaten. I wanted assurance that the kibble food was safe even though it wasn’t on the recall lists [which I had decided were meaningless]. I wanted the food tested for melamine, cyanuric acid, and aminopterin [acetaminophen wasn’t on the radar screen at the time].

I spoke with close to a dozen labs before sending baggies of the food to be tested. I found out what equipment they had, etc., etc. Most of the labs would not do analysis for a lone consumer such as myself. Of the three that would, one was in Dallas/Ft. Worth [they subcontracted their work to ExperTox] and one was in La Jolla. The La Jolla lab was FDA-approved, which didn’t mean it was better. [My translation: they had done work for the FDA in the past so they understood their standards and had a working relationship with them.]

I was hell bent on getting the food checked for aminopterin. The La Jolla lab was upfront and told me that they didn’t have the FDA standards yet and that they had to wait. To my knowledge they never did get the standards for aminopterin. They also had to wait to receive the standards from the FDA for the other toxins, but received those after a couple weeks. ExperTox, however, was able to send me results [sans the aminopterin] within 2-3 weeks.

Both labs concluded that the samples I sent were negative for melamine and cyanuric acid. They said they would inform me about the aminopterin, but here we are, 7 months later, and I haven’t heard a thing. I’ve contacted them a few times, but I had decided months ago that the food samples I’d sent them back in May had probably disintegrated and weren’t worth testing once they did get a protocol.

Incidentally, I happened to talk at length last spring to Dr. Michael Carlson at the University of Nebraska who gave me an overview about testing processes. The man was most generous of his time and I am grateful. He recommended MidWest Lab and in retrospect I am sorry I didn’t send them a sample to them as well.

One thing I do recall is that the FDA’s criteria for measurement of a toxin was in some cases significantly more relaxed than one or more of the labs. This meant that the FDA “set their level” such that analysis would only detect a toxin if it was found in much higher concentrations. Some independent labs set the criteria lower which would detect the toxin much faster.

Don Earl: I wonder if anyone bothered contacting the pharmaceuticals that make acetaminophen products. I’ll bet they have a whole encyclopedia of test standards that could be adapted.

“What exactly is “evidence” of test results?” [Wegmans expects test results from Menu Foods.]

I’m not convinced that anyone except a few biochemists truly knows which tests should be performed or how to perform them for accurate results.

I am SO cynical after the pet food recall. The first objective of MF and Wegmans is profit. Period. That said, I believe that Wegmans is willing to rely on a simple document from MF stating that the food tested is safe. I dont’ know about you, but I don’t trust MF as far as I can throw them. Once a liar, always a liar. And shame on Wegmans for being naive.

And double-shame on any consumer who believes what any of those manufacturers or distributors say.

Even the Nutro rep who comes to my store tries to tell me it’s OK to trust products made by Menu again. She pulled out this “talking points” sheet the company gave all their reps and said, “See? Nutro has completely stopped the use of Chinese ingredients and wheat gluten from any source.” This is a lady I’ve known for a couple years now and she knows I used to feed my cats Nutro but switched when the recall happened. We just about got into an argument right there in the store when I told her I’m not ever again buying anything made by Menu, I don’t care if they cure cancer, build the perfect mousetrap and work the miracle of the loaves and fishes all in the same day…they’re not getting my business again. She waved her talking points sheet in my face and said, “We aren’t using Menu anymore! See?” I (politely as I could) pointed out that her sheet doesn’t say they aren’t using Menu anymore, it just says Nutro is being acquired by the Mars corporation and is changing which plants where SOME of their products are made. She got real quiet then.

If Nutro publicly states in a clear no-nonsense fashion that they DO NOT use Menu Foods to manufacture ANY of their products, they DO NOT use ANY imported ingredients and they DO NOT have ANY of their products made outside of the US then I will buy their food again. But they haven’t.

I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Do they also get “proof” that Menu’s food is safe? How can they be sure? Are they standing over the production line, or something?

If I were a company still doing business with Menu, I’d be very concerned about the recent “Lick Your Chops” story.

IMHO, this looks like a “silent” recall - can’t find mention of the products on any recall list.

“It’s been six months since our pet food supplier, Menu Foods, recalled Wegmans wet cat food and Bruiser wet dog food. We are finally ready to restore these products to the shelf. We wouldn’t do that if we didn’t have confidence that the new supply is perfectly safe.

However, they [Menu] are testing raw materials for melamine and a host of other substances, and then a battery of tests on finished food. We are requiring evidence of those test results.”

http://www.wegmans.com/meb/con.....entid=3927

What exactly is “evidence” of test results? Does Menu simply tell them the food is safe, or does Wegmans receive a copy of the lab report? Do they receive “proof” of safety for each lot they purchase from Menu? Exactly WHAT scientific proof does Wegmans receive?

1-800-WEGMANS(934-6267), ext. 4760

Wegmans Food Markets
1500 Brooks Avenue
PO Box 30844
Rochester, NY 14603-0844

http://www.wegmans.com/guest/i.....p#comments