PLEASE DU this ABC Poll: Should Menu Foods Continue to Test Deadly Food on Animals?

[nicknameless]

Please vote "No"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2963443&page=1

After a pet-food recall Friday, researchers are conducting tests and even risking some animals lives to uncover the ingredient that has killed several animals.

Should some dogs and cats be killed to save the lives of others?

• Yes. We test on animals all the time. It's unfortunate but necessary.
• No. Loving your pet means loving all animals. There must be another way to determine the cause.
• No. I'm not a pet owner, but I think it's a cruel irony to kill one dog to save another.
• I'm not sure. I would need to know whether this was the best way to find the cause of the recall.

Continuing to feed known contaminated food to animals is insane. Please vote to stop this insane "testing".

[mockmonkey]

1. I say

They should get out of the pet food business if they don't know what the hell is in the food they are selling.

[nicknameless]

2. Exactly! They don't know what they're selling AND they're selling it to everybody.

What a nightmare.
I lost my baby in January to renal failure. And just read that some of the foods she ate were made by Menu.

:cry:

[AZBlue]

26. I'm so so sorry!!!

:hug:

I know it's painful but have you thought about submitting the info to the websites collecting it? These bastards need to be held accountable!!!

[nicknameless]

31. Thank you, AZBlue

:hug:

She was "the best baby ever", as I used to tell her.
Undoubtedly the most profound, heart-breaking loss I've ever experienced.

[AZBlue]

46. I feel for you!!

I lost my first baby in September 2005 and I still miss her. She was older but in good health up until the end - and then she got sick and a month later she was gone. It's so very hard, but I still keep her in my heart and she's still with me today. And I now have a new baby and she's just as fantastic in a totally different way - I call them my two girls. Pets are just some of the best things in life!

[nicknameless]

49. I am so very sorry for your loss too.

My baby will always be in my heart.
She was funny, sweet, always cheerful.

It's so true. Pets are the very best.
I'm glad that you have a wonderful new baby and that you're still close with the one who passed.

:hug:

[AZBlue]

51. Thank you!

[Sherman A1]

3. I must disagree

They need to stay in the business... merely change the subjects of their tests to those who occupy the Executive Suite or at the very least the pets owned by the CEO and Board Members. One suspects that they would figure out how to do their job exceptionally quickly if this minor adjustment was made.

[Donnachaidh]

4. I would still lik to know WHY top shelf foods AND the cheaper foods

are ALL coming from this same company?

It's OBVIOUS to me as a consumer that we have been DUPED by the Pet Food companies. We need an investigation into this. NOW.

[Sherman A1]

6. When you get into the world of private labels or store brands

a great deal of them are produced by the very same company. Working in a grocery store for 30+ years, we occasionally see mix ups and get our competitor's brand or a case of something from a chain across the country. I would check out Topco to see just how many brands they produce as a start.

[Hubert Flottz]

5. No they should test them on their CEOs!

[jmowreader]

9. Now, now...

the information we currently have says neither snakes, rats nor cockroaches are believed to be affected by this food.

So how would feeding this shit to the BoD of Menu Foods, all of whom appear to belong to one of those groups, prove whether it's fit for Fido or Fluffy to eat?

I'm going to assume that either dropping the production of chunks in gravy or changing back to the gluten supplier they dropped for this one aren't options.

[bdamomma]

7. this is so sad, even our animals are at risk, poisoning us and them

[nicknameless]

8. .

:kick:

[Rhiannon12866]

10. Done, my friend. K&R, from me.

Rhiannon:hi:

[The Stranger]

11. Whoever was feeding contaminated food to the animals should become the food testers.

[alstephenson]

12. Not just "NO", but HELL NO!!!

This is just wrong.

[Beaverhausen]

13. 9 of the test animals have already died...how many more do they need?

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Sorry, had to vote "yes,"

until someone shows me another way to figure out why hundreds of thousands of animals' lives are at risk, and how to prevent it from happening again.

[kestrel91316]

15. Yes. Better that a few research animals die than hundreds MORE

beloved pets, if we don't figure out what the hell is doing the killing.

For my own pets' sake, and that of my patients, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

[roguevalley]

17. I can't agree. This is morally reprehensible. I hope they burn in hell.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

44. I agree

[Madspirit]

16. Done! k&r n/t

[cosmicdot]

18. done

2 'no' replies is hardly necessary ... but, this is the corporate media

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Do people want to themselves and their pets to be healthy...

or not?

How do you think medical science works if not for animal testing? Computer simulations?

[Speck Tater]

20. No to testing. Who cares if people's pets die by the thousands, ...

just as long as no animals are harmed by testing.

Compassion is a wonderful thing, but so is reality, and sometimes reality demands what we would rather not have to pay. But when we have no choice, we have no choice. In this case the choice is to test, or to let untested food out onto the store shelves where hundreds of thousands of involuntary testers, our beloved pets, will ultimately do the testing anyway. One way or another, the testing WILL be done, whether on lab animals, or on our own pets. That's the choice. Sometimes reality sucks, but facing reality, even when it sucks, is the only mature response.

"But it's not FAIR!!!" Anyone who has had kids has heard their five-year olds utter that complaint again and again. Grownups should know better.

[LisaL]

43. Exactly. Now, I have bought and fed my pets the recalled food.

So, I guess I would prefer more testing was done by the food companies, not less, so either they wouldn't sell this food in the first place, or would have been able to recall it faster.
But I guess some people here think millions should buy the untested food because pet food companies just shouldn't test their pet food on animals.
Well, dah, it's pet food-who should they test it on?

[DeepBlueC]

21. surely they can test for contaminants

without seeing if animals die!!! What if the USDA did that sort of thing ...oops, they do, these days, don't they? But I think we already know other ways of testing for purity and if the wheat gluten (as I have heard) from one suppplier contaminated so many brands of pet food, it is not as if we are talking about testing each individual can. All they had to do was conduct tests of rather large batches. That does not seem to be to much to expect. Why not hold pet food to to the same levels of edibility and purity that we expect in human food? I have often wondered why I can't but food for my cat that is actually a product and not a by-product. Even the very expensive prescription foods that I buy have this kind of ingredient. My vet keeps assuring me of the quality of premium brands but the contents do not scream "quality" to me.

[nicknameless]

24. There are much more heathful alternatives than what a lot of vets MAKE MONEY from selling.

A number of brands don't use by-products. (By-products are allowed to contain disgusting garbage)
Most grocery store brands do include them in the ingredients, so you may need to shop elsewhere for your cat.
Pet Club's prices are pretty decent.

Here is a great, informative thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=243x4388

DUer piesRsquare posted on her blog a list of the pet foods that are (so far) known to be safe:
http://2blackcats.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/petsitusacom-blog-list-of-safe-pet-foods

Welcome to DU, jeme :)

[DeepBlueC]

29. I hope vets make money...

it does not seem to be an unreasonable expectation. My neighbor's cat has kidney disease (not related to recent events) and I have been supplying her with MediCal Reduced Protein wet food and KD dry food and she looks a hell of a lot healthier than she did in December when I started taking care of her while my neighbor was away for Christmas. This food is clearly better for her than anything the local Pet Valu had to offer here in Toronto. The prescription food is what the vet recommended ... the type not the brand...and supplied her with various samples to see what her cat preferred. But since December I have been supplying the food and the cat looks better and I am quite sure that it is prolonging her life.

I have tried to get my own cats to eat the highest quality foods I can find, including some stuff that claimed to be made of human grade ingredients. I wonder why any of it is not? We are well past feeding our pets orts and sorts not suitable for family consumption, so why I am I so diligently scouting out a wide variety of pet foods that are apparently made from ingredients of inferior quality? I'm okay with letting some company do the preparation but I'd like them to start with food that I recognize as edible, even palatable. I'd like to see that guaranteed by regulation. Or at least better and mandatory labelling.

[nicknameless]

30. Why would anyone like the idea of vets pushing disgusting by-product "foods"

that they make money from selling?

I would prefer that pet heath be the priority.

[DeepBlueC]

32. my vet says that they are good

and she has no clinic of her own and sells no food at all. She is a home vet which is good for me as I have four cats and no car. You are aware that vets sell various prescription foods, specially formulated for cats with chronic renal failure, and several other situations like gastric distress, appetite stimulation, post surgical recovery? My many cats have used all of the above for short periods over the years & I do trust that there is a medical rationale. The niches are not broad enough for wide commercial sale, but it sure is helpful to have access to them when you need them.

[DeepBlueC]

33. what is wrong with earning a living?

Making money is not inherently evil.

[nicknameless]

34. ???

I have no idea why you can't understand that I'm talking about vets making money off of harmful products.
If you're fine with that, go ahead and buy them.

[DeepBlueC]

36. I don't think they ARE harmful

I think they could be better. AS I have said I have seen the beneficial effects of some of these prescription foods. I think they are better than what is found in pet stores, more appropriate in certain medical situations and I absolutely do trust my vet to point out when that is the case. I have never had a vet push only what they are selling. In fact I have only had specific advice about what to feed a cat when the cat has some kind of medical reeason for a temporary change of diet. And as far as I recall when the special food is just for a couple of days post surgery the clinic vet has GIVEN me the food.

[nicknameless]

38. Yeah. They're great.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_3_61/ai_54017841

The "animal protein" in many pet foods is made up of: diseased meat, road kill, contaminated "material" from slaughterhouses, fecal matter, pets which have been euthanized with sodium pentobarbital, chicken and turkey feathers, and the waste from milling room floors.

Sources of these "animal proteins" are diseased, drugged, and euthanized animals (including other cats and dogs). These carcasses go to receiving plants, where the hide (sold to a tannery), skin, fats, and meat are removed. The "meat" from these animals can be sold for pet food (sometimes along with tags and flea collars in place), after being marked as "unfit for human consumption."

If this "meat" arrives at the receiving plant already decomposing, it's sent to a rendering plant, along with road kill. Also "fine" for pet food is condemned material from slaughterhouses -- animals that died on their way to slaughter, diseased animals or parts, diseased blood, hair, hooves and paws, horns, stomach contents, heads, mammary glands, unborn calf carcasses, processed animal waste from the floor of the slaughterhouses along with litter material from the floor, and, again, euthanized companion pets.

And:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=443453&mesg_id=450071

Edited to fix link

[barb162]

35. thanks for posting this info

[LisaL]

27. They have been testing the food to this day and still

they can't figure out what is killing the animals. So, no, they can't find out what the problem is. It's a pet food. WTF should it be tested on, humans?
In fact I think they should have had those animal testers before they sold it, maybe now they wouldn't be in this predicament.

[nicknameless]

22. In Defense of Animals is asking people to vote "No" in this poll.

That's how I found out about it.

http://ga0.org/indefenseofanimals/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=7959575

There are other methods of testing available (tissue, cell, etc.). Why murder more animals?

Researchers with the company and the FDA have yet to determine what is causing the deaths, but suspect that it is linked to a protein source used as a filler in wet food (i.e., canned or pouched), which Menu Foods says they purchased from a new supplier. Scientists believe the food could be contaminated with heavy metals like cadmium and lead or some type of fungal toxin.

This is not the first time cats and dogs have suffered for "pet" food. Some commercial cat and dog foods contain such unsavory ingredients as pesticide residues, antibiotics and other drugs, and meat and by-products from sick or "downed" animals. Some manufacturers even purchase the carcasses of cats and dogs from shelters and process them into "pet" food with deadly euthanizing chemicals still in their bloodstreams. Some companies (Iams, for example) are targeted by animal rights activists for conducting cruel and deadly tests on cats and dogs, and for keeping them alone in barren laboratory cages.

[Rhiannon12866]

23. I hear from them, as well, and I voted.

And I sure agree! Thanks so much for posting the additional information...:-)

Rhiannon:hi:

[nicknameless]

25. Isn't IDA a great organization? :o)

Hi Rhiannon :hi:

[Rhiannon12866]

40. Hi, Nick, and they certainly are!

I subscribe to way too much, these days, and am now spending more time on DU, as a mod, but I still take part in the animal "actions" that I get, since they still come first for me. I adopted a puppy last fall, which I never thought I would do, since I adopt older animals, but this little guy was offered to me by a vet tech who used to work for my vet and thought of me, since my little Meneken, who is now 13, is the same unusual breed, a Brussels Griffon, unheard of in rescue. And he was irresistible, so I adopted him. But he's quite a handful... I knew that there was a reason that I adopted older animals, LOL. How are your kitties? :hi: Here's my puppy, Jack, named for my Dad, who also loved animals and would have really loved him.:loveya:

[nicknameless]

41. Aw .. Jack is a cutie.

:)

I'll bet he is a handful, and probably endless entertainment for you and your older pups.


Check your PMs

[Rhiannon12866]

45. Thanks!

And he sure is a handful, runs roughshod over all of us even though he's such a little guy. But he has energy to spare and, now that he's finally neutered and has had his necessary surgery, I'm planning to enroll him in a training class. I believe that I owe it to him, since I took responsibility for him, and it's hard for me to do anything at home since I have three, one who wants to engage him, and my baby, Meneken (at 13), who wants no part of him, and I don't blame him, LOL.:D

And I read my PMs before I saw this and I will get back to you. I have had a similar experience and I don't think that you're in anyway to blame. You gave your pets the best, more than most people do.:-)

Rhiannon:hug:

Jack at 10 months, my little "devil dog," because of the ears...:loveya:

[nicknameless]

48. OMG, he's adorable!

I'm so surprised you didn't decline to adopt him. ;)
Joking, of course. What a heart-melter.

I did everything I *knew* to do for my baby. I just wish I had known more.
She was the most sweet-natured little girl -- right up to the end.

Thank you for your kind words. :hug:

[LisaL]

28. Where do you think tissue comes from?

[nicknameless]

37. Seems this should go without saying,

but I would hope Menu Foods would concentrate their testing on the products themselves.

Obviously there are toxins present, which must be identified and isolated.

[DeepBlueC]

39. that's exactly what I think

Surely that is the place to start, with testing the ingredients first, rather than putting it all together & seeing whether it kills an acceptable minority of test subjects. And, yes, I would like to see more stringent regulatory control of the contents. Edible or non-edible, period. Not edible for some of us mammals (my cats) and not for others (me). The distinction there is not one of science but of commerce, as far as I can see. The standards for humans have been eroded by the same consideration. I can remember when food was supposed to come to market clean rather than come home to be decontaminated by overcooking. And then the kitchens disinfected from food prep.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. well

not that an online poll would have any effect on the real world, but I had to vote for 4) I'm not sure. I would need to know whether this was the best way to find the cause of the recall.


Given that so little is known right now about what's causing this, testing on lab animals may be the only way to find out. Better on them than on my pets.

[nicknameless]

47. Thousands of pets have already been poisoned by this contaminated food.

Nearly (over?) a thousand have died.
... So the answer is to KILL MORE animals???

"Oops. These died too. Let's feed the poisonous food to a few hundred more cats and dogs and see what happens to them."

Hey, that's logical.

Turns out that the culprit was probably rat poison in the Chinese wheat.
Menu could have found that out by testing their product ingredients rather than poisoning animals.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. No.

They should test it on cable news broadcasters.