Just read about what is really in cat food

[kate]

I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

[Kim]

I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.


"kate" > wrote in message
om...
> I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

[Kim]

I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.


"kate" > wrote in message
om...
> I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

[Cathy Friedmann]

Think of the birds, mice, whatever cats will eat. Human grade? ;-)

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Kim" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
> I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.
>
>
> "kate" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> > This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> > cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> > diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> > some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> > treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> > There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> > dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)
>
>

[Cathy Friedmann]

Think of the birds, mice, whatever cats will eat. Human grade? ;-)

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Kim" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
> I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.
>
>
> "kate" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> > This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> > cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> > diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> > some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> > treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> > There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> > dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)
>
>

[Steve Crane]

(kate) wrote in message >...
> Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

I cannot speak for the others but such allegations about Hill's
Science Diet are completely without any foundation in fact whatsoever.
They are utterly in error. Hill's funds NO invasive research of any
kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet
product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish!

[Steve Crane]

(kate) wrote in message >...
> Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

I cannot speak for the others but such allegations about Hill's
Science Diet are completely without any foundation in fact whatsoever.
They are utterly in error. Hill's funds NO invasive research of any
kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet
product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish!

[Steve Crane]

"Kim" > wrote in message gers.com>...
> I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
> I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.
>


You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
of the term and the deception of consumers.

Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
organic- wonder why?

Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...

"Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
created by a fanciful marketing department.

[Steve Crane]

"Kim" > wrote in message gers.com>...
> I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand
> I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats.
>


You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
of the term and the deception of consumers.

Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
organic- wonder why?

Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...

"Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
created by a fanciful marketing department.

[Purplecat]

Hi Steve,
You say this is if you can speak for Hill's with certainty? Just curious as
I'm always keeping an ear out for information regarding quality of pet
foods.
Cheers,
Purplecat


"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
om...
> (kate) wrote in message
>...
> > Some brands, including Iams,
> > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> > dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)
>
> I cannot speak for the others but such allegations about Hill's
> Science Diet are completely without any foundation in fact whatsoever.
> They are utterly in error. Hill's funds NO invasive research of any
> kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet
> product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish!

[Purplecat]

Hi Steve,
You say this is if you can speak for Hill's with certainty? Just curious as
I'm always keeping an ear out for information regarding quality of pet
foods.
Cheers,
Purplecat


"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
om...
> (kate) wrote in message
>...
> > Some brands, including Iams,
> > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> > dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)
>
> I cannot speak for the others but such allegations about Hill's
> Science Diet are completely without any foundation in fact whatsoever.
> They are utterly in error. Hill's funds NO invasive research of any
> kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet
> product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish!

[Betsy]

You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned on
the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> >research
> >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her
book
> >is
> >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
> >
> >The version I read was recently updated.
>
> That doesn't change what I said.
>
> ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> >>
> >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
> >
> >I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.
> >
>
> What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
FDA
> enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
pinpoint a
> violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
PETA,
> etc.
>
> >> I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient enters
a
> >pet
> >> food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically designated
as
> >> "unfit for human consumption".>>
> >
> >I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> >a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.
>
> Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
So, it
> is being enforced.
>
> >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
Science
> >Diet
> >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned,
> >call
> >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
> >
> >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> >exact experiments which were conducted
>
> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
didn't
> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
books
> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
>
> >> Ask yourself what is more important--whether or not the food meets the
> >nutrient
> >> profile for that particular lifestage or whether the ingredients
"sound"
> >> appetizing. A lot of "all natural" foods have artifical preservatives
in
> >them.>>
> >
> >No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> >cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.
>
> Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in
the
> US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's
product).
> <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and be
> scared than separate truth from fiction.

[Betsy]

You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned on
the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> >research
> >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her
book
> >is
> >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
> >
> >The version I read was recently updated.
>
> That doesn't change what I said.
>
> ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> >>
> >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
> >
> >I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.
> >
>
> What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
FDA
> enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
pinpoint a
> violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
PETA,
> etc.
>
> >> I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient enters
a
> >pet
> >> food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically designated
as
> >> "unfit for human consumption".>>
> >
> >I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> >a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.
>
> Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
So, it
> is being enforced.
>
> >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
Science
> >Diet
> >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned,
> >call
> >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
> >
> >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> >exact experiments which were conducted
>
> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
didn't
> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
books
> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
>
> >> Ask yourself what is more important--whether or not the food meets the
> >nutrient
> >> profile for that particular lifestage or whether the ingredients
"sound"
> >> appetizing. A lot of "all natural" foods have artifical preservatives
in
> >them.>>
> >
> >No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> >cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.
>
> Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in
the
> US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's
product).
> <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and be
> scared than separate truth from fiction.

[Purplecat]

I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.

Thanks,
Purplecat

"Betsy" -0> wrote in message
...
> You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned
on
> the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.
>
> "GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> > >research
> > >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her
> book
> > >is
> > >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
> > >
> > >The version I read was recently updated.
> >
> > That doesn't change what I said.
> >
> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> > >>
> > >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
> > >
> > >I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.
> > >
> >
> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics?
The
> FDA
> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> > etc.
> >
> > >> I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient
enters
> a
> > >pet
> > >> food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically
designated
> as
> > >> "unfit for human consumption".>>
> > >
> > >I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> > >a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.
> >
> > Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> > whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
> So, it
> > is being enforced.
> >
> > >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
> Science
> > >Diet
> > >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are
concerned,
> > >call
> > >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
> > >
> > >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> > >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> > >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> > >exact experiments which were conducted
> >
> > Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> > she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> > but it doesn't help much of anything else.
> >
> > >> Ask yourself what is more important--whether or not the food meets
the
> > >nutrient
> > >> profile for that particular lifestage or whether the ingredients
> "sound"
> > >> appetizing. A lot of "all natural" foods have artifical
preservatives
> in
> > >them.>>
> > >
> > >No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> > >cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.
> >
> > Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in
> the
> > US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's
> product).
> > <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and
be
> > scared than separate truth from fiction.
>
>

[Purplecat]

I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.

Thanks,
Purplecat

"Betsy" -0> wrote in message
...
> You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned
on
> the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.
>
> "GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> > >research
> > >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her
> book
> > >is
> > >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
> > >
> > >The version I read was recently updated.
> >
> > That doesn't change what I said.
> >
> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> > >>
> > >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
> > >
> > >I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.
> > >
> >
> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics?
The
> FDA
> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> > etc.
> >
> > >> I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient
enters
> a
> > >pet
> > >> food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically
designated
> as
> > >> "unfit for human consumption".>>
> > >
> > >I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> > >a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.
> >
> > Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> > whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
> So, it
> > is being enforced.
> >
> > >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
> Science
> > >Diet
> > >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are
concerned,
> > >call
> > >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
> > >
> > >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> > >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> > >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> > >exact experiments which were conducted
> >
> > Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> > she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> > but it doesn't help much of anything else.
> >
> > >> Ask yourself what is more important--whether or not the food meets
the
> > >nutrient
> > >> profile for that particular lifestage or whether the ingredients
> "sound"
> > >> appetizing. A lot of "all natural" foods have artifical
preservatives
> in
> > >them.>>
> > >
> > >No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> > >cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.
> >
> > Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in
> the
> > US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's
> product).
> > <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and
be
> > scared than separate truth from fiction.
>
>

[Sherry]

>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>
>Thanks,
>Purplecat

Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
would like to read the article.
sherry

[Sherry]

>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>
>Thanks,
>Purplecat

Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
would like to read the article.
sherry

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/11/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned on
>the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.
>

Yeah, where was it? Time, place, city, state, that kind of thing. Which "pet
food factory" was it going to? Was it really a "pet food factory" or something
else? What foods do they make, etc?? Lots of times people jump to conclusions
when they don't have any of the facts.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/11/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>You obviously didn't catch the news story about the truck that overturned on
>the way to the pet food factory. Do a little research, dear.
>

Yeah, where was it? Time, place, city, state, that kind of thing. Which "pet
food factory" was it going to? Was it really a "pet food factory" or something
else? What foods do they make, etc?? Lots of times people jump to conclusions
when they don't have any of the facts.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Purplecat
>
>Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
>would like to read the article.
>sherry

It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
just waiting to be offended or scared these days.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Purplecat
>
>Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
>would like to read the article.
>sherry

It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
just waiting to be offended or scared these days.

[Alison Smiley Perera]

In article >,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Purplecat
> >
> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
> >would like to read the article.
> >sherry
>
> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html

Enjoy!
-Alison in OH

[Alison Smiley Perera]

In article >,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Purplecat
> >
> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck, and
> >would like to read the article.
> >sherry
>
> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html

Enjoy!
-Alison in OH

[Betsy]

You beat me to it. I have been searching for this article on the internet
too, in Google groups & news. I was beginning to believe I had been
hallucinating when I read it! (how I wish :( ).

"Alison Smiley Perera" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
> > >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't
find
> > >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I
can.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Purplecat
> > >
> > >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food
truck, and
> > >would like to read the article.
> > >sherry
> >
> > It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't
have
> > proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out
there
> > just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH

[Betsy]

You beat me to it. I have been searching for this article on the internet
too, in Google groups & news. I was beginning to believe I had been
hallucinating when I read it! (how I wish :( ).

"Alison Smiley Perera" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
> > >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't
find
> > >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I
can.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Purplecat
> > >
> > >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food
truck, and
> > >would like to read the article.
> > >sherry
> >
> > It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't
have
> > proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out
there
> > just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH

[Linda Dachtyl]

in article , Alison Smiley
Perera at wrote on 8/12/03 2:03 PM:

> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
>>>> I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>>>> anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Purplecat
>>>
>>> Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
>>> and
>>> would like to read the article.
>>> sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
>> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
>> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH

Sounds more like on the way to a fertilizer plant in Ohio, too. Holmes
By-products to be exact. Unfortunately, we lived about 2 miles from this
thing. I think the EPA finally got after them to take care of the stench.
When there was a fog, it was the most horrible thing you could imagine other
than finding the products on the way to it on the road.

Linda

[Linda Dachtyl]

in article , Alison Smiley
Perera at wrote on 8/12/03 2:03 PM:

> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
>>>> I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>>>> anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Purplecat
>>>
>>> Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
>>> and
>>> would like to read the article.
>>> sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
>> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
>> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH

Sounds more like on the way to a fertilizer plant in Ohio, too. Holmes
By-products to be exact. Unfortunately, we lived about 2 miles from this
thing. I think the EPA finally got after them to take care of the stench.
When there was a fog, it was the most horrible thing you could imagine other
than finding the products on the way to it on the road.

Linda

[Gilbert Chew]

Alison Smiley Perera > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
>> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but
>> >>can't find anything about it on the internet. Would like to read
>> >>about it if I can.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Purplecat
>> >
>> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food
>> >truck, and would like to read the article.
>> >sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't
>> have proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many
>> people out there just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH


I looked for a story about an overturned truck full of dead pets. The
details of the story are different than what I expected, given the
previous posts. No wonder I couldn't find it.

[Gilbert Chew]

Alison Smiley Perera > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote:
>
>> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but
>> >>can't find anything about it on the internet. Would like to read
>> >>about it if I can.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Purplecat
>> >
>> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food
>> >truck, and would like to read the article.
>> >sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't
>> have proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many
>> people out there just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
> Enjoy!
> -Alison in OH


I looked for a story about an overturned truck full of dead pets. The
details of the story are different than what I expected, given the
previous posts. No wonder I couldn't find it.

[Steve Crane]

(kate) wrote in message >...
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...

> > I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the research
> > that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her book is
> > illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
>
> The version I read was recently updated.

But still contains the same innuendo or her first book.


>
> <<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >cats and dogs in their formula
> >
> > Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
>
> I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.

Yes it is checked and it is enforced. Less than two years ago the FDA
and USDA undertook another major study of pet foods and found no trace
of such ingredients in the major pet food company products.


> > I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient enters a pet
> > food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically designated as
> > "unfit for human consumption".>>
>
> I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.

You may not be "unreasonable" but you are falling for scaremongering
tactics with absolutely no foundation in fact. You need to step back
just a bit. Follow the money trail. How can Anne Martin sell a book if
it doesn't contain horrific claims? who would be the least bit
interested in a book extolling the virtue of anything as mundane as
pet foods? How does the media sell TV add time if they can't entice
you with little teasers caliming to have horrific facts to impart.
There is a multi-billion dollar economy in selling fear to anxious
consumers. Books like Anne Martin junk, videos, TV, Radio and rpint
media all climb on the bandwagon if it will sell advertising space.
Don't let yourself fall victim to scaremongering.



> >
> > IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort. Science Diet
> > doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned, call
> > the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
>
> Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> exact experiments which were conducted

"she" is full of BS with a capital B. Science Diet has not funded any
invasive studies in nearly 20 years. Period!


> No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.

It simply isn't true of any of the premium pet foods so find something
else to worry about. Perhaps worry about the nutrients that affect
your cats long term health perhaps?

[Steve Crane]

(kate) wrote in message >...
> (GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...

> > I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the research
> > that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her book is
> > illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>
>
> The version I read was recently updated.

But still contains the same innuendo or her first book.


>
> <<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >cats and dogs in their formula
> >
> > Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>
>
> I don't think it is enforced or checked on at all, though.

Yes it is checked and it is enforced. Less than two years ago the FDA
and USDA undertook another major study of pet foods and found no trace
of such ingredients in the major pet food company products.


> > I'll let you in on a little secret. Once a pet food ingredient enters a pet
> > food plant (regardless of it's quality), it is automatically designated as
> > "unfit for human consumption".>>
>
> I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased animal,
> a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern me.

You may not be "unreasonable" but you are falling for scaremongering
tactics with absolutely no foundation in fact. You need to step back
just a bit. Follow the money trail. How can Anne Martin sell a book if
it doesn't contain horrific claims? who would be the least bit
interested in a book extolling the virtue of anything as mundane as
pet foods? How does the media sell TV add time if they can't entice
you with little teasers caliming to have horrific facts to impart.
There is a multi-billion dollar economy in selling fear to anxious
consumers. Books like Anne Martin junk, videos, TV, Radio and rpint
media all climb on the bandwagon if it will sell advertising space.
Don't let yourself fall victim to scaremongering.



> >
> > IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort. Science Diet
> > doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned, call
> > the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>
>
> Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> exact experiments which were conducted

"she" is full of BS with a capital B. Science Diet has not funded any
invasive studies in nearly 20 years. Period!


> No, its the prospect of a cat or dog being unnwittingly forced into
> cannibalism, or eating diseased animal parts that scares me.

It simply isn't true of any of the premium pet foods so find something
else to worry about. Perhaps worry about the nutrients that affect
your cats long term health perhaps?

[minerva nine]

I realize I'm coming in late on this thread, but what the hell. I
agree that including cat and dog meat in cat food is ethically
questionable, but don't you realize what cats eat in the wild? They
eat diseased flesh, guts, feathers, hair, anything and everything they
can rip into small enough bits to get in their mouths. If you died in
your house alone with your cats, they would eat YOU to survive. Cats
aren't made like humans, and they don't need to be fed "human-grade"
food. Now, that said, it does make sense to buy food that contains a
high-quality protein source. If you read the label on most of the
mainstream cat food, there is always a "by-product" of some kind, and
that is where they sneak in the nasty stuff. If a "by-product" is in
the first five ingredients of your cat food, it's probably not the
best quality food to give your cat. Also, anything that is
unspecified "meat" probably should be avoided (kangaroo meat? rat
meat? who knows?) However, forcing cat food companies to supply
"human grade" food for cats causes more feed animals to be slaughtered
and more usable parts to be wasted (who's gonna eat those cow guts
from all your hamburgers, huh?), the price of cat food goes up, your
cats aren't any healthier, nobody wins. Just my $0.02.

M9


(kate) wrote in message >...
> I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

[minerva nine]

I realize I'm coming in late on this thread, but what the hell. I
agree that including cat and dog meat in cat food is ethically
questionable, but don't you realize what cats eat in the wild? They
eat diseased flesh, guts, feathers, hair, anything and everything they
can rip into small enough bits to get in their mouths. If you died in
your house alone with your cats, they would eat YOU to survive. Cats
aren't made like humans, and they don't need to be fed "human-grade"
food. Now, that said, it does make sense to buy food that contains a
high-quality protein source. If you read the label on most of the
mainstream cat food, there is always a "by-product" of some kind, and
that is where they sneak in the nasty stuff. If a "by-product" is in
the first five ingredients of your cat food, it's probably not the
best quality food to give your cat. Also, anything that is
unspecified "meat" probably should be avoided (kangaroo meat? rat
meat? who knows?) However, forcing cat food companies to supply
"human grade" food for cats causes more feed animals to be slaughtered
and more usable parts to be wasted (who's gonna eat those cow guts
from all your hamburgers, huh?), the price of cat food goes up, your
cats aren't any healthier, nobody wins. Just my $0.02.

M9


(kate) wrote in message >...
> I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!!
> This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into
> cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and
> diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In
> some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat
> treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter.
> There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams,
> Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and
> dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow...
> Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are
> Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember)

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Purplecat
>> >
>> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
>and
>> >would like to read the article.
>> >sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
>> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
>> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
>http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
>Enjoy!
>-Alison in OH
>
Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/ that
truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple of
days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that supposedly
took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't find
>> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Purplecat
>> >
>> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
>and
>> >would like to read the article.
>> >sherry
>>
>> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
>> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
>> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
>
>http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
>
>Enjoy!
>-Alison in OH
>
Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/ that
truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple of
days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that supposedly
took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0

>You work for Hills?
>
>Then you should clearly state that in each and every post you initiate or
>reply to regarding pet food.
>
>If you cannot do that, you have no credibility in my book. Anything less is
>tantamount to deception.
>

Why don't we expect FULL DISCLOSURE from you on every post you make?? Steve
has stated in the past that the posts he makes are his opinion and only his
opinion and doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Hill's. Why are you trying to
discredit him?

If you can disprove anything he ever says, then you have something to gripe
about.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0

>You work for Hills?
>
>Then you should clearly state that in each and every post you initiate or
>reply to regarding pet food.
>
>If you cannot do that, you have no credibility in my book. Anything less is
>tantamount to deception.
>

Why don't we expect FULL DISCLOSURE from you on every post you make?? Steve
has stated in the past that the posts he makes are his opinion and only his
opinion and doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Hill's. Why are you trying to
discredit him?

If you can disprove anything he ever says, then you have something to gripe
about.

[Betsy]

You are extraordinarily naive. And either you can't read or you are in
total denial.

First, here's the first bit of the article in question, in which you could
find no reference to a pet food factory:

"Carcasses are spilled on Route 7
August 8, 2003

By BRENT CURTIS Herald Staff

A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory [clipped]"

Second: If you think that someone who works for a particular firm is
totally free to express his own opinion, you've never worked in the real
world.

I teach music, and am currently teaching in a studio located in a piano
store. I have done this in competitors stores for the past 25 years.

The salespeople from these stores don't stay long in any particular employ.
So it is not at all uncommon to see Joe Schmoe singing the highlights of
Steinways one day and trashing the competitor, and working for the
competitor the next day and trashing the Steinway. I can give you names and
firms, but I won't because I'd be in trouble.

I have no obligation to sell the pianos in those stores, nor would I allow
myself to be obligated in that way, as I consider it a conflict of interest.
However, recently I told one of my students where they might get a cheaper
used piano (rather than buy it at the store wherein I teach). Even though
it is contractually stated that I don't need to sell their pianos, there was
a huge brouhaha during which not only I but the other teachers in the
resident music school were almost booted out because of my "indiscretion"
and "lack of support".

Don't ever think that you can work for a firm and NOT tout it's products
publicly and still stay employed by that firm. That is why you should also
not believe any research funded by industry.

DUH!

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Betsy" -0
>
> >You work for Hills?
> >
> >Then you should clearly state that in each and every post you initiate or
> >reply to regarding pet food.
> >
> >If you cannot do that, you have no credibility in my book. Anything less
is
> >tantamount to deception.
> >
>
> Why don't we expect FULL DISCLOSURE from you on every post you make??
Steve
> has stated in the past that the posts he makes are his opinion and only
his
> opinion and doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Hill's. Why are you
trying to
> discredit him?
>
> If you can disprove anything he ever says, then you have something to
gripe
> about.

[Betsy]

You are extraordinarily naive. And either you can't read or you are in
total denial.

First, here's the first bit of the article in question, in which you could
find no reference to a pet food factory:

"Carcasses are spilled on Route 7
August 8, 2003

By BRENT CURTIS Herald Staff

A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory [clipped]"

Second: If you think that someone who works for a particular firm is
totally free to express his own opinion, you've never worked in the real
world.

I teach music, and am currently teaching in a studio located in a piano
store. I have done this in competitors stores for the past 25 years.

The salespeople from these stores don't stay long in any particular employ.
So it is not at all uncommon to see Joe Schmoe singing the highlights of
Steinways one day and trashing the competitor, and working for the
competitor the next day and trashing the Steinway. I can give you names and
firms, but I won't because I'd be in trouble.

I have no obligation to sell the pianos in those stores, nor would I allow
myself to be obligated in that way, as I consider it a conflict of interest.
However, recently I told one of my students where they might get a cheaper
used piano (rather than buy it at the store wherein I teach). Even though
it is contractually stated that I don't need to sell their pianos, there was
a huge brouhaha during which not only I but the other teachers in the
resident music school were almost booted out because of my "indiscretion"
and "lack of support".

Don't ever think that you can work for a firm and NOT tout it's products
publicly and still stay employed by that firm. That is why you should also
not believe any research funded by industry.

DUH!

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Betsy" -0
>
> >You work for Hills?
> >
> >Then you should clearly state that in each and every post you initiate or
> >reply to regarding pet food.
> >
> >If you cannot do that, you have no credibility in my book. Anything less
is
> >tantamount to deception.
> >
>
> Why don't we expect FULL DISCLOSURE from you on every post you make??
Steve
> has stated in the past that the posts he makes are his opinion and only
his
> opinion and doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Hill's. Why are you
trying to
> discredit him?
>
> If you can disprove anything he ever says, then you have something to
gripe
> about.

[Alison Smiley Perera]

In article >,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

> >> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't
> >> >>find
> >> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks,
> >> >>Purplecat
> >> >
> >> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
> >and
> >> >would like to read the article.
> >> >sherry
> >>
> >> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> >> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out
> >> there
> >> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
> >
> >http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
> >
> >Enjoy!
> >-Alison in OH
> >
> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/
> that
> truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple
> of
> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
> supposedly
> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.
>

Someone beat me to the punch but I'd be happy to quote the same passage.

"A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory ... "

I do believe that you stated "Diseased parts aren't used" and "These
things DON'T happen in the US."

A poster responded "You obviously didn't catch the news story about the
truck that overturned on the way to the pet food factory." I don't get
the feeling that this incident, the one in question, is part of an urban
legend taking place decades ago.

Your response to this? "It probably never happened. I suspect that it
was made up."

Nope, not made up. Nasty, putrid, dead, diseased, and decaying meat
products are really and truly disposed of in our precious companion
pets' digestive systems. Some of us trust Hill's when they claim not to
use the loopholes in ingredient definitions for things like
"by-products". Still others would prefer to trust smaller companies that
grow based on a solid reputation of promoting health, and believe them
when they say that the ingredients they use are wholesome enough for you
and me to eat. And yet others, jaded and disillusioned, have discovered
that perhaps the best way to ensure the quality of their pets' food is
to pick it out in the grocery store themselves.

-Alison in OH

[Alison Smiley Perera]

In article >,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

> >> >>I didn't catch this. When/where did it happen? I've looked but can't
> >> >>find
> >> >>anything about it on the internet. Would like to read about it if I can.
> >> >>
> >> >>Thanks,
> >> >>Purplecat
> >> >
> >> >Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
> >and
> >> >would like to read the article.
> >> >sherry
> >>
> >> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> >> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out
> >> there
> >> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
> >
> >http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
> >
> >Enjoy!
> >-Alison in OH
> >
> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/
> that
> truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple
> of
> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
> supposedly
> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.
>

Someone beat me to the punch but I'd be happy to quote the same passage.

"A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory ... "

I do believe that you stated "Diseased parts aren't used" and "These
things DON'T happen in the US."

A poster responded "You obviously didn't catch the news story about the
truck that overturned on the way to the pet food factory." I don't get
the feeling that this incident, the one in question, is part of an urban
legend taking place decades ago.

Your response to this? "It probably never happened. I suspect that it
was made up."

Nope, not made up. Nasty, putrid, dead, diseased, and decaying meat
products are really and truly disposed of in our precious companion
pets' digestive systems. Some of us trust Hill's when they claim not to
use the loopholes in ingredient definitions for things like
"by-products". Still others would prefer to trust smaller companies that
grow based on a solid reputation of promoting health, and believe them
when they say that the ingredients they use are wholesome enough for you
and me to eat. And yet others, jaded and disillusioned, have discovered
that perhaps the best way to ensure the quality of their pets' food is
to pick it out in the grocery store themselves.

-Alison in OH

[GAUBSTER2]

>You are extraordinarily naive. And either you can't read or you are in
>total denial.

I'm neither. Neither am I paranoid, which you seem to be!

>By BRENT CURTIS Herald Staff
>
>A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory

Which pet food factory? Where? That is a rather generic sentence. When
reporting the news, such general statements shouldn't be used. It is true that
dead dogs and cats can be used for bone meal in fertilizer, but NOT in pet
foods. Period. And there is a difference between cattle (beef) and dogs and
cats being used in pet foods. Beef going to "a dog food factory" is somehow
evil or wrong?

>Second: If you think that someone who works for a particular firm is
>totally free to express his own opinion, you've never worked in the real
>world.

Oh please. Just because your personal experience went one way, doesn't mean
it's that way all over. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but that isn't the
rule everywhere.

>Don't ever think that you can work for a firm and NOT tout it's products
>publicly and still stay employed by that firm. That is why you should also
>not believe any research funded by industry.
>

NOW I SEE. I guess you don't believe there is such a thing as freedom of
speech. You're another one of these people who chooses not to believe
peer-reviewed, published research. I suppose you just don't know how that
whole process works. Perhaps Steve Crane will run through the whole process
for you sometime. Basically you open yourself up to your competitors to try
and find something wrong w/ your research. If it holds up to everyone's
scrutiny, it is valid. So yes, you can believe most research funded by
industry. Perhaps there are some exceptions to that, but generally speaking,
in a free society (such as here in the US) private industry funds research to
find the BEST (in most cases, moral) way to supply a product or service that
consumers want/need. It seems you would rather believe that there is some
insidious process that is keeping everybody down and not allowing the "truth"
to come out.

>DUH!

Indeed!

[GAUBSTER2]

>You are extraordinarily naive. And either you can't read or you are in
>total denial.

I'm neither. Neither am I paranoid, which you seem to be!

>By BRENT CURTIS Herald Staff
>
>A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory

Which pet food factory? Where? That is a rather generic sentence. When
reporting the news, such general statements shouldn't be used. It is true that
dead dogs and cats can be used for bone meal in fertilizer, but NOT in pet
foods. Period. And there is a difference between cattle (beef) and dogs and
cats being used in pet foods. Beef going to "a dog food factory" is somehow
evil or wrong?

>Second: If you think that someone who works for a particular firm is
>totally free to express his own opinion, you've never worked in the real
>world.

Oh please. Just because your personal experience went one way, doesn't mean
it's that way all over. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but that isn't the
rule everywhere.

>Don't ever think that you can work for a firm and NOT tout it's products
>publicly and still stay employed by that firm. That is why you should also
>not believe any research funded by industry.
>

NOW I SEE. I guess you don't believe there is such a thing as freedom of
speech. You're another one of these people who chooses not to believe
peer-reviewed, published research. I suppose you just don't know how that
whole process works. Perhaps Steve Crane will run through the whole process
for you sometime. Basically you open yourself up to your competitors to try
and find something wrong w/ your research. If it holds up to everyone's
scrutiny, it is valid. So yes, you can believe most research funded by
industry. Perhaps there are some exceptions to that, but generally speaking,
in a free society (such as here in the US) private industry funds research to
find the BEST (in most cases, moral) way to supply a product or service that
consumers want/need. It seems you would rather believe that there is some
insidious process that is keeping everybody down and not allowing the "truth"
to come out.

>DUH!

Indeed!

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/
>> that
>> truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple
>
>> of
>> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
>> supposedly
>> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.

I've heard this same statement years ago. Either I can tell the future, or
you're taking events that are totally unrelated and using them to try to prove
your point.

>Someone beat me to the punch but I'd be happy to quote the same passage.
>
>"A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory ... "
>
>I do believe that you stated "Diseased parts aren't used" and "These
>things DON'T happen in the US."
>

2 things: you're taking what I said out of context and combining them. Let me
correct the record. How do you know that the diseased parts aren't CUT OUT?
Because that is what happens. It's the law.

Cats and dogs ARE NOT USED IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! They
are used in fertilizer. That's what I was referring to when I said these
things don't happen in the US.

Another thing: the truck is carrying cattle (beef) to the "dog food factory"??
Where are all of the dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?

>Nope, not made up. Nasty, putrid, dead, diseased, and decaying meat
>products are really and truly disposed of in our precious companion
>pets' digestive systems.

Really? Perhaps you would like to blow the industry wide open then? It's
simply your opinion and nothing else.

>Some of us trust Hill's when they claim not to
>use the loopholes in ingredient definitions for things like
>"by-products".

Some companys (like Hill's) make foods based on the nutrient profiles that are
best for the animal. They then use the best quality ingredients to get there.

>Still others would prefer to trust smaller companies that
>grow based on a solid reputation of promoting health, and believe them
>when they say that the ingredients they use are wholesome enough for you
>and me to eat.

You can believe whomever you want--I will go with proven successes and
companies w/ proven track records. Most of those "smaller" companies that you
refer to don't provide the nutrition that's best for the individual
animal--they provide one size fits all foods.

>And yet others, jaded and disillusioned, have discovered
>that perhaps the best way to ensure the quality of their pets' food is
>to pick it out in the grocery store themselves.
>

....that aren't neccessarily nutritionally balanced.

But hey, to each his own! Right? :) Have a good day!

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do w/
>> that
>> truck going to a pet food facility. Besides, this only "happened" a couple
>
>> of
>> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
>> supposedly
>> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.

I've heard this same statement years ago. Either I can tell the future, or
you're taking events that are totally unrelated and using them to try to prove
your point.

>Someone beat me to the punch but I'd be happy to quote the same passage.
>
>"A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food factory ... "
>
>I do believe that you stated "Diseased parts aren't used" and "These
>things DON'T happen in the US."
>

2 things: you're taking what I said out of context and combining them. Let me
correct the record. How do you know that the diseased parts aren't CUT OUT?
Because that is what happens. It's the law.

Cats and dogs ARE NOT USED IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! They
are used in fertilizer. That's what I was referring to when I said these
things don't happen in the US.

Another thing: the truck is carrying cattle (beef) to the "dog food factory"??
Where are all of the dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?

>Nope, not made up. Nasty, putrid, dead, diseased, and decaying meat
>products are really and truly disposed of in our precious companion
>pets' digestive systems.

Really? Perhaps you would like to blow the industry wide open then? It's
simply your opinion and nothing else.

>Some of us trust Hill's when they claim not to
>use the loopholes in ingredient definitions for things like
>"by-products".

Some companys (like Hill's) make foods based on the nutrient profiles that are
best for the animal. They then use the best quality ingredients to get there.

>Still others would prefer to trust smaller companies that
>grow based on a solid reputation of promoting health, and believe them
>when they say that the ingredients they use are wholesome enough for you
>and me to eat.

You can believe whomever you want--I will go with proven successes and
companies w/ proven track records. Most of those "smaller" companies that you
refer to don't provide the nutrition that's best for the individual
animal--they provide one size fits all foods.

>And yet others, jaded and disillusioned, have discovered
>that perhaps the best way to ensure the quality of their pets' food is
>to pick it out in the grocery store themselves.
>

....that aren't neccessarily nutritionally balanced.

But hey, to each his own! Right? :) Have a good day!

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>Once again, this bears repeating--IT IS
>AGAINST THE LAW TO USE DOGS AND
>CATS IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED
>STATES.

No, it's not. I suggest you do your homework before you make yourself
look silly again. There is no federal law that
prohibits the use of dogs and cats in pet foods.

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011108.648e380.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011109.64d98cc.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011128.653ba1b.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011205.659bca5.html

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>Once again, this bears repeating--IT IS
>AGAINST THE LAW TO USE DOGS AND
>CATS IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED
>STATES.

No, it's not. I suggest you do your homework before you make yourself
look silly again. There is no federal law that
prohibits the use of dogs and cats in pet foods.

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011108.648e380.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011109.64d98cc.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011128.653ba1b.html

http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011205.659bca5.html

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Betsy]

Thank you Megan.

Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one source"
and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.

> wrote in message
...
> Gaubster2 wrote:
> >Once again, this bears repeating--IT IS
> >AGAINST THE LAW TO USE DOGS AND
> >CATS IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED
> >STATES.
>
> No, it's not. I suggest you do your homework before you make yourself
> look silly again. There is no federal law that
> prohibits the use of dogs and cats in pet foods.
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011108.648e380.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011109.64d98cc.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011128.653ba1b.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011205.659bca5.html
>
> Megan
>
>
>
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing."
>
> -Edmund Burke
>
> Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
> http://www.stopdeclaw.com
>
> Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
> http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22
>
> "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
> elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
> splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
> providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
> raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
> material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
> way."
>
> - W.H. Murray
>
>

[Betsy]

Thank you Megan.

Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one source"
and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.

> wrote in message
...
> Gaubster2 wrote:
> >Once again, this bears repeating--IT IS
> >AGAINST THE LAW TO USE DOGS AND
> >CATS IN PET FOODS IN THE UNITED
> >STATES.
>
> No, it's not. I suggest you do your homework before you make yourself
> look silly again. There is no federal law that
> prohibits the use of dogs and cats in pet foods.
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011108.648e380.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011109.64d98cc.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011128.653ba1b.html
>
> http://www.kmov.com/news/AllmanReport/kmov_news_allman_011205.659bca5.html
>
> Megan
>
>
>
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing."
>
> -Edmund Burke
>
> Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
> http://www.stopdeclaw.com
>
> Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
> http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22
>
> "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
> elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
> splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
> providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
> raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
> material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
> way."
>
> - W.H. Murray
>
>

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/16/03 7:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Thank you Megan.
>
>Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one source"
>and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.

See my previous post. I can't help you if you don't want to know the truth.
Try being analytical instead of emotional.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/16/03 7:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Thank you Megan.
>
>Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one source"
>and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.

See my previous post. I can't help you if you don't want to know the truth.
Try being analytical instead of emotional.

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>The report is simply wrong.

<snip rest of post now trying to backpedal and deflect from the issue of
law, which was the only point or claim I made>

So a direct quote from someone from the FDA is simply wrong, too?
Regardless of your claim, using dogs and cats in pet food is not an
illegal act covered by federal law. If it is cite the statute.

>Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal
>for fertilizer.

And pet food, if a company so desires. There is no law against it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>The report is simply wrong.

<snip rest of post now trying to backpedal and deflect from the issue of
law, which was the only point or claim I made>

So a direct quote from someone from the FDA is simply wrong, too?
Regardless of your claim, using dogs and cats in pet food is not an
illegal act covered by federal law. If it is cite the statute.

>Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal
>for fertilizer.

And pet food, if a company so desires. There is no law against it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Betsy]

I could easily counter with the same.

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Betsy" -0
> >Date: 8/16/03 7:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Thank you Megan.
> >
> >Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one
source"
> >and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.
>
> See my previous post. I can't help you if you don't want to know the
truth.
> Try being analytical instead of emotional.

[Betsy]

I could easily counter with the same.

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Betsy" -0
> >Date: 8/16/03 7:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Thank you Megan.
> >
> >Of course, Gaubster will immediately counter that "this is just one
source"
> >and "give me some solid proof" and his/her other inane rebuttals.
>
> See my previous post. I can't help you if you don't want to know the
truth.
> Try being analytical instead of emotional.

[GAUBSTER2]

><snip rest of post now trying to backpedal and deflect from the issue of
>law, which was the only point or claim I made>
>
>So a direct quote from someone from the FDA is simply wrong, too?
>Regardless of your claim, using dogs and cats in pet food is not an
>illegal act covered by federal law. If it is cite the statute.
>
>>Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal
>>for fertilizer.
>
>And pet food, if a company so desires. There is no law against it.

I've provided sources so that you can look them up if so desired. If you have
sources that contradict me, then provide them.

I'm not at all backpedaling so please don't paint me as doing so. That's being
disingenuous on your part.

If the flagrant violation of law is so pervasive and widespread it won't be a
problem to show me where it is happening. You're totalling ignoring the FDA
study, btw.

[GAUBSTER2]

><snip rest of post now trying to backpedal and deflect from the issue of
>law, which was the only point or claim I made>
>
>So a direct quote from someone from the FDA is simply wrong, too?
>Regardless of your claim, using dogs and cats in pet food is not an
>illegal act covered by federal law. If it is cite the statute.
>
>>Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal
>>for fertilizer.
>
>And pet food, if a company so desires. There is no law against it.

I've provided sources so that you can look them up if so desired. If you have
sources that contradict me, then provide them.

I'm not at all backpedaling so please don't paint me as doing so. That's being
disingenuous on your part.

If the flagrant violation of law is so pervasive and widespread it won't be a
problem to show me where it is happening. You're totalling ignoring the FDA
study, btw.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/16/03 11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I could easily counter with the same.
>

Show me where the "truck on the way to the pet food company" had dead dogs and
cats in it. There still hasn't been anything shown to validate this urban
legend. The truck that was reported had cattle (beef) in it, not dogs and
cats.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: "Betsy" -0
>Date: 8/16/03 11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I could easily counter with the same.
>

Show me where the "truck on the way to the pet food company" had dead dogs and
cats in it. There still hasn't been anything shown to validate this urban
legend. The truck that was reported had cattle (beef) in it, not dogs and
cats.

[Cheryl]

In ,
GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:
>> From: "Betsy" -0
>> Date: 8/16/03 11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> I could easily counter with the same.
>>
>
> Show me where the "truck on the way to the pet food company" had
> dead dogs and cats in it. There still hasn't been anything shown
> to validate this urban legend. The truck that was reported had
> cattle (beef) in it, not dogs and cats.

FFS. The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased parts
aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):

<copy and paste from Message-ID:
>

>I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased
animal,
>a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern
me.

Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books
(and
whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
So, it
is being enforced.

<end c&p>

[Cheryl]

In ,
GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:
>> From: "Betsy" -0
>> Date: 8/16/03 11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> I could easily counter with the same.
>>
>
> Show me where the "truck on the way to the pet food company" had
> dead dogs and cats in it. There still hasn't been anything shown
> to validate this urban legend. The truck that was reported had
> cattle (beef) in it, not dogs and cats.

FFS. The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased parts
aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):

<copy and paste from Message-ID:
>

>I am not an unreasonable person, but the concept of a diseased
animal,
>a cow with mad cow disease, etc, being fed to my cat, does concern
me.

Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books
(and
whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
So, it
is being enforced.

<end c&p>

[The Avocado Avenger]

(GAUBSTER2) writes:

>The report is simply wrong. Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal for
>fertilizer. They are not used in pet foods. Since you don't believe me, why
>don't you provide some names of companies that DO use dead cats and dogs in
>their pet food. If you want to learn the facts and not the scare tactics, then
>go to www.fsis.usda.gov and do a search under "pet foods". Or look at Book 9
>of CFR (Codified Federal Regulations), part 355.

Please provide a link. I went to the web site you showed and searched
"pet foods" and found nothing about whether dogs and cats were used in
pet food. I searched under "dog AND cat" and found 2 documents, both
about staph infections. So please give us a link.

>Recently, the USDA did a study (in 2000, I think) looking for the presence of
>DNA and other substances and found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would suggest that
>dogs and cats are in being used in pet foods.

Please provide a link.

* * *
Stacia * * The Avocado Avenger (dec'd)
"I currently have 236 wieners in my freezers."

[The Avocado Avenger]

(GAUBSTER2) writes:

>The report is simply wrong. Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal for
>fertilizer. They are not used in pet foods. Since you don't believe me, why
>don't you provide some names of companies that DO use dead cats and dogs in
>their pet food. If you want to learn the facts and not the scare tactics, then
>go to www.fsis.usda.gov and do a search under "pet foods". Or look at Book 9
>of CFR (Codified Federal Regulations), part 355.

Please provide a link. I went to the web site you showed and searched
"pet foods" and found nothing about whether dogs and cats were used in
pet food. I searched under "dog AND cat" and found 2 documents, both
about staph infections. So please give us a link.

>Recently, the USDA did a study (in 2000, I think) looking for the presence of
>DNA and other substances and found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would suggest that
>dogs and cats are in being used in pet foods.

Please provide a link.

* * *
Stacia * * The Avocado Avenger (dec'd)
"I currently have 236 wieners in my freezers."

[GAUBSTER2]

>Gaubster2 Wrote:
>
>>I've provided sources so that you can
>>look them up if so desired.
>
>More backpedaling.

I'm not backpedaling, nice try though. If you look it up and find it on your
own, then you are more likely to believe it than to take my word for it. But
if you don't want to take the time to search for the truth, then you must not
want to know that bad.

> It is a waste of time for me to look up a law that does not
>exist (except in your mind) nor should I be shouldered with the
>responsibility of backing up *your* claim.

I'm not asking you to back me up. I'm trying to persuade you to take the time
to find out on your own. There's a difference. I'm not sending you on a wild
goose chase.

>I already did. From the source I provided:
>
>*But the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees pet food
>ingredients, allows dead dogs and cats in pet food, saying disease or
>the drugs used to sedate the animals dissipates through cooking.
>"Well, we don't believe it's going to cause problems for the animals. If
>we did, we would not allow it to happen," Aird says.*

You and I both know that quotes are taken out of context quite frequently by
the media (Jason Blair anyone?) You're hanging your hat on that, fine. But
I'm telling you that if you look it up AND take into account that the USDA did
testing, looking for the presence of dogs and cats in petfood, they DIDN'T FIND
ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH A THING. You're conviently ignoring that, so I don't know
what your agenda is.

>You've done it twice now and are going out of your way to avoid having
>to back up your claim that it is illegal to use dogs and cats in pet
>food.

I'm providing references, so you can discover for yourself. Try calling your
state AAFCO official as well.

>>If the flagrant violation of law is so
>>pervasive and widespread it won't be a
>>problem to show me where it is
>>happening. You're totalling ignoring the
>>FDA study, btw.
>
>I have not once discussed whether using cats and dogs in pet food is a
>widespread practice and the FDA study has nothing to do with the point I
>am making.

Yes is does. THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE, JUST ALLEGATIONS THAT DOGS AND CATS
ARE IN PET FOOD.

>Contrary to the claim you have made yet refuse to back up, there is no
>federal law prohibiting the use of dogs and cats in pet food.
>

What kind of "proof" are you looking for? I don't have the CFR on my desk or
anything like that.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Gaubster2 Wrote:
>
>>I've provided sources so that you can
>>look them up if so desired.
>
>More backpedaling.

I'm not backpedaling, nice try though. If you look it up and find it on your
own, then you are more likely to believe it than to take my word for it. But
if you don't want to take the time to search for the truth, then you must not
want to know that bad.

> It is a waste of time for me to look up a law that does not
>exist (except in your mind) nor should I be shouldered with the
>responsibility of backing up *your* claim.

I'm not asking you to back me up. I'm trying to persuade you to take the time
to find out on your own. There's a difference. I'm not sending you on a wild
goose chase.

>I already did. From the source I provided:
>
>*But the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees pet food
>ingredients, allows dead dogs and cats in pet food, saying disease or
>the drugs used to sedate the animals dissipates through cooking.
>"Well, we don't believe it's going to cause problems for the animals. If
>we did, we would not allow it to happen," Aird says.*

You and I both know that quotes are taken out of context quite frequently by
the media (Jason Blair anyone?) You're hanging your hat on that, fine. But
I'm telling you that if you look it up AND take into account that the USDA did
testing, looking for the presence of dogs and cats in petfood, they DIDN'T FIND
ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH A THING. You're conviently ignoring that, so I don't know
what your agenda is.

>You've done it twice now and are going out of your way to avoid having
>to back up your claim that it is illegal to use dogs and cats in pet
>food.

I'm providing references, so you can discover for yourself. Try calling your
state AAFCO official as well.

>>If the flagrant violation of law is so
>>pervasive and widespread it won't be a
>>problem to show me where it is
>>happening. You're totalling ignoring the
>>FDA study, btw.
>
>I have not once discussed whether using cats and dogs in pet food is a
>widespread practice and the FDA study has nothing to do with the point I
>am making.

Yes is does. THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE, JUST ALLEGATIONS THAT DOGS AND CATS
ARE IN PET FOOD.

>Contrary to the claim you have made yet refuse to back up, there is no
>federal law prohibiting the use of dogs and cats in pet food.
>

What kind of "proof" are you looking for? I don't have the CFR on my desk or
anything like that.

[GAUBSTER2]

>The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
>this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased parts
>aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):

IIRC, one of the original posts concerned a "truck w/ dead dogs and cats on the
way to the local pet food factory". I am simply challenging that because it
has never been proven, yet it is taken as fact.

[GAUBSTER2]

>The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
>this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased parts
>aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):

IIRC, one of the original posts concerned a "truck w/ dead dogs and cats on the
way to the local pet food factory". I am simply challenging that because it
has never been proven, yet it is taken as fact.

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:
> >> The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
> >> this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased
> >> parts
> >> aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):
> >
> > IIRC, one of the original posts concerned a "truck w/ dead dogs and
> > cats on the way to the local pet food factory". I am simply
> > challenging that because it has never been proven, yet it is taken
> > as fact.
>
> No, you're very wrong. I think you're arguing too many points at the
> same time and losing track of which one your reading. Please do try
> to keep up.

My tiny 2 cents: I've been sort of following this thread, & IIRC,
*originally* the argument was over whether or not dead pets are used in pet
food production. Then a link to a newspaper article was posted about cattle
carcasses spilling from a truck on its way to a(n un-named) pet food
factory, then the argument seemed to morph into whether or not diseased
animal parts are used in pets foods... at any rate, the whole thread & its
arguments became murky, IMO.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:
> >> The part she was clearly referring to from your own post was
> >> this (in case you don't remember, your reply was that diseased
> >> parts
> >> aren't used, not that the truck had dead dogs and cats on it):
> >
> > IIRC, one of the original posts concerned a "truck w/ dead dogs and
> > cats on the way to the local pet food factory". I am simply
> > challenging that because it has never been proven, yet it is taken
> > as fact.
>
> No, you're very wrong. I think you're arguing too many points at the
> same time and losing track of which one your reading. Please do try
> to keep up.

My tiny 2 cents: I've been sort of following this thread, & IIRC,
*originally* the argument was over whether or not dead pets are used in pet
food production. Then a link to a newspaper article was posted about cattle
carcasses spilling from a truck on its way to a(n un-named) pet food
factory, then the argument seemed to morph into whether or not diseased
animal parts are used in pets foods... at any rate, the whole thread & its
arguments became murky, IMO.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[GAUBSTER2]

>I think you're arguing too many points at the
>same time and losing track of which one your reading. Please do try
>to keep up.

Cheryl, unless you can provide information in support or against the mulitple
arguments on this thread I am making, your critiques aren't very helpful. The
points remains the same--allegations are being made that dogs and cats are used
in pet foods and yet nobody can point to one single example where this is the
case. I'm just trying to make the point that there is nothing to worry about
since that practice is illegal anyway. The allegations w/ no truth to them
whatsoever aren't challenged by anyone else (but me) and yet I'm the one who
has to "provide" evidence that something that isn't taking place, well, isn't
taking place. Go figure. I'm not trying to scare anyone, I have no agenda,
and yet I'm somehow getting questioned? Sheesh. All one has to do is call the
company that makes your particular food and ask them if they use dead dogs and
cats in their food. Once you find out that they don't, you can rest easy (or
maybe not if you like to be paranoid). It's quite simple, really.

[GAUBSTER2]

>I think you're arguing too many points at the
>same time and losing track of which one your reading. Please do try
>to keep up.

Cheryl, unless you can provide information in support or against the mulitple
arguments on this thread I am making, your critiques aren't very helpful. The
points remains the same--allegations are being made that dogs and cats are used
in pet foods and yet nobody can point to one single example where this is the
case. I'm just trying to make the point that there is nothing to worry about
since that practice is illegal anyway. The allegations w/ no truth to them
whatsoever aren't challenged by anyone else (but me) and yet I'm the one who
has to "provide" evidence that something that isn't taking place, well, isn't
taking place. Go figure. I'm not trying to scare anyone, I have no agenda,
and yet I'm somehow getting questioned? Sheesh. All one has to do is call the
company that makes your particular food and ask them if they use dead dogs and
cats in their food. Once you find out that they don't, you can rest easy (or
maybe not if you like to be paranoid). It's quite simple, really.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I did the search about 2 years ago. I'll have to see what I can find.
>Until
>>then, it seems that allegations are more important than fact.
>
> I feed my cats dry cat food and I'm concerned about what's in it. I'm
>just trying to find out the truth, I'm not interested in allegations or
>posturing.
> But how can you remember what you found in a web search two years ago?

I had a hard drive failure Jan. of 2002. I simply had the website written
down, and lost the actual link when I had to start from scratch. I actually
lost a lot of good info that way. I try to print out stuff now and file it but
when a website page is several printed pages long, I don't do it.

> I don't want to find
>out I've been buying euthanized animal shelter critters for 13-odd years
>and feeding them to my furballs.

You don't have to worry. Just call the company of whatever brand you are
feeding and see what they have to say. I'm just trying to dispel an urban
legend, that's all.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I did the search about 2 years ago. I'll have to see what I can find.
>Until
>>then, it seems that allegations are more important than fact.
>
> I feed my cats dry cat food and I'm concerned about what's in it. I'm
>just trying to find out the truth, I'm not interested in allegations or
>posturing.
> But how can you remember what you found in a web search two years ago?

I had a hard drive failure Jan. of 2002. I simply had the website written
down, and lost the actual link when I had to start from scratch. I actually
lost a lot of good info that way. I try to print out stuff now and file it but
when a website page is several printed pages long, I don't do it.

> I don't want to find
>out I've been buying euthanized animal shelter critters for 13-odd years
>and feeding them to my furballs.

You don't have to worry. Just call the company of whatever brand you are
feeding and see what they have to say. I'm just trying to dispel an urban
legend, that's all.

[Gilbert Chew]

"k conover" > wrote in
:

> Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html;
>

Uh, IMO, I think it would be better to cite web sites that don't have so
many articles on UFOs.

[Gilbert Chew]

"k conover" > wrote in
:

> Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html;
>

Uh, IMO, I think it would be better to cite web sites that don't have so
many articles on UFOs.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I'm just trying to make the point that
>>there is nothing to worry about since that
>>practice is illegal anyway
>
>PROVE IT.

>You have backpedaled and skirted this issue
>several times. Prove what you say is true.

I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I say. But let's play your game. Why
don't you prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet
food. I maintain that they are not. Let's see your federal statutes that say
such a practice is not only allowed, but common.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I'm just trying to make the point that
>>there is nothing to worry about since that
>>practice is illegal anyway
>
>PROVE IT.

>You have backpedaled and skirted this issue
>several times. Prove what you say is true.

I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I say. But let's play your game. Why
don't you prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet
food. I maintain that they are not. Let's see your federal statutes that say
such a practice is not only allowed, but common.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html

Okay, I tried it w/o the ";" and got it to work. The problem here is that the
site is referencing Ann Martin who did her research in the 60s and 70s and is
the subject of this whole debate. Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet foods
in the US. If they are, it is illegal.

Let's suppose this was happening for a minute. Don't you think that people
would find out about it and object? Then those companies would go out of
business since they alienated so many of their consumers. No? OR I suppose
it's just a big conspiracy intended as a joke on pet lovers everywhere, right?

[GAUBSTER2]

>Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html

Okay, I tried it w/o the ";" and got it to work. The problem here is that the
site is referencing Ann Martin who did her research in the 60s and 70s and is
the subject of this whole debate. Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet foods
in the US. If they are, it is illegal.

Let's suppose this was happening for a minute. Don't you think that people
would find out about it and object? Then those companies would go out of
business since they alienated so many of their consumers. No? OR I suppose
it's just a big conspiracy intended as a joke on pet lovers everywhere, right?

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I
>say.

Then why you can't you prove it? You have not posted one item of
information that backs up or verifies your claim, but you have spent a
lot of energy *avoiding* doing just that.

>But let's play your game. Why don't you
>prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats
>and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet food. I
>maintain that they are not.

Again I already proved it with a quote from the FDA. They would know
what they're talking about.
Here's another article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm

"Still, it is not illegal to use rendered material from dogs and cats in
pet food. And while no one keeps official figures, there's some evidence
it happens.
The Food and Drug Administration has found "very, very low levels" of
sodium pentobarbital--the chemical used to euthanize animals--in some
brands of dog food, said Stephen Sundloff, director of the FDA's Center
for Veterinary Medicine. The agency is investigating whether the traces
are "of any significance at all," Sundloff said."

On DNA testing for cats and dogs in pet food:
http://www.supersonicjane.com/rants/pfood.shtml

"Also, I have contacted three forensic labs and all have stated that it
would be virtually impossible to detect any dog and cat DNA in a product
that had been rendered and then processed."

And more on Sodium Pentobarbitol in pet food:

http://members.rogers.com/anmartin1/cvm.html



>Let's see your
>federal statutes that say such a practice is
>not only allowed, but common.

I have NEVER said a word about whether it is common or if it is done at
all. And you don't need a statute for something that is allowed. Duh.
It's clear you are not going to prove what you say or in any way back it
up with facts, despte the fact that you have been asked to do so
numerous times. That IS backpedaling and AFAIC you've lost the argument.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I
>say.

Then why you can't you prove it? You have not posted one item of
information that backs up or verifies your claim, but you have spent a
lot of energy *avoiding* doing just that.

>But let's play your game. Why don't you
>prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats
>and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet food. I
>maintain that they are not.

Again I already proved it with a quote from the FDA. They would know
what they're talking about.
Here's another article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm

"Still, it is not illegal to use rendered material from dogs and cats in
pet food. And while no one keeps official figures, there's some evidence
it happens.
The Food and Drug Administration has found "very, very low levels" of
sodium pentobarbital--the chemical used to euthanize animals--in some
brands of dog food, said Stephen Sundloff, director of the FDA's Center
for Veterinary Medicine. The agency is investigating whether the traces
are "of any significance at all," Sundloff said."

On DNA testing for cats and dogs in pet food:
http://www.supersonicjane.com/rants/pfood.shtml

"Also, I have contacted three forensic labs and all have stated that it
would be virtually impossible to detect any dog and cat DNA in a product
that had been rendered and then processed."

And more on Sodium Pentobarbitol in pet food:

http://members.rogers.com/anmartin1/cvm.html



>Let's see your
>federal statutes that say such a practice is
>not only allowed, but common.

I have NEVER said a word about whether it is common or if it is done at
all. And you don't need a statute for something that is allowed. Duh.
It's clear you are not going to prove what you say or in any way back it
up with facts, despte the fact that you have been asked to do so
numerous times. That IS backpedaling and AFAIC you've lost the argument.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 Wrote:

>The problem here is that the site is
>referencing Ann Martin who did her
>research in the 60s and 70s and is the
>subject of this whole debate.

The problem here is that you are determined to become the minister of
*disinformation.*

If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
first published in 1997.

>Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet
>foods in the US. If they are, it is illegal.

Prove it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 Wrote:

>The problem here is that the site is
>referencing Ann Martin who did her
>research in the 60s and 70s and is the
>subject of this whole debate.

The problem here is that you are determined to become the minister of
*disinformation.*

If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
first published in 1997.

>Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet
>foods in the US. If they are, it is illegal.

Prove it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[GAUBSTER2]

>It's clear you are not going to prove what you say or in any way back it
>up with facts, despte the fact that you have been asked to do so
>numerous times. That IS backpedaling and AFAIC you've lost the argument.
>

You're not very patient, then. I should have something in a few days.

>Gaubster2 wrote:
>>I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I
>>say.
>
>Then why you can't you prove it? You have not posted one item of
>information that backs up or verifies your claim, but you have spent a
>lot of energy *avoiding* doing just that.

While you may rely on the internet for all of your "proof", I don't. No matter
how many times you say it, I'm not backpedaling. I really wish you would quit
spinning the issue.

>>But let's play your game. Why don't you
>>prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats
>>and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet food. I
>>maintain that they are not.
>
>Again I already proved it with a quote from the FDA.

No, you didn't "prove" it. You're relying on someone else to do "your"
research. You don't know the person in the story from Adam. Do you?



>Here's another article:
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm

A lot of allegations, but no proof. This, btw, is recycled news footage that
makes it's way across the country when they need to fill time during the news.
It made it's way here to the local Portland news last Nov (2002). They made
all kinds of allegations, yet no finger-pointing at any given company--no
proof. I called the news station to find out more information and was told
that they frequently run "human interest" stories from around the country and
that it was just a tape that they provided voice-overs for. According to the
local station, they were given a script to read over the footage to "localize"
it. See what I mean about scare tactics? Fear sells.

>"Still, it is not illegal to use rendered material from dogs and cats in
>pet food. And while no one keeps official figures, there's some evidence
>it happens.
>The Food and Drug Administration has found "very, very low levels" of
>sodium pentobarbital--the chemical used to euthanize animals--in some
>brands of dog food, said Stephen Sundloff, director of the FDA's Center
>for Veterinary Medicine. The agency is investigating whether the traces
>are "of any significance at all," Sundloff said."

Read the quote closely. The first sentence is opinion, not fact. As for the
"some evidence it happens", the pentobarbital was eventually determined to
originate from cattle; it's used to put down cattle (a source of beef found in
some pet foods). Once all of the facts are examined, the truth becomes
self-evident. If you take things out of context, then you run into problems.



>
>On DNA testing for cats and dogs in pet food:
>http://www.supersonicjane.com/rants/pfood.shtml
>

Nice opinion piece, but not all sides of the issue are represented. This gal
says she fed a kibble that had "human grade" ingredients. There is no such
thing in pet foods. So right away she is wrong. Once a pet food ingredient
(regardless of how high quality it is) enters a pet food factory, it
automatically become "unfit for human consumption". That's the rule. If you
were to buy a roast from your butcher, go home, and then decide to return it
for some reason, the butcher (by law) can't resell the meat--it has to get
thrown out...even though there is nothing wrong w/ it. And just the fact that
she is getting "Ann Martin's take on it" suggests that she is picking and
choosing her subject matter. Hardly "fair and balanced".

Anything you quote from Ann Martin should be taken w/ a grain of salt. She has
made a fortune selling fear to unsuspecting and well-meaning pet owners.

[GAUBSTER2]

>It's clear you are not going to prove what you say or in any way back it
>up with facts, despte the fact that you have been asked to do so
>numerous times. That IS backpedaling and AFAIC you've lost the argument.
>

You're not very patient, then. I should have something in a few days.

>Gaubster2 wrote:
>>I'm not backpedaling, I stand by what I
>>say.
>
>Then why you can't you prove it? You have not posted one item of
>information that backs up or verifies your claim, but you have spent a
>lot of energy *avoiding* doing just that.

While you may rely on the internet for all of your "proof", I don't. No matter
how many times you say it, I'm not backpedaling. I really wish you would quit
spinning the issue.

>>But let's play your game. Why don't you
>>prove to me that I'm wrong and that cats
>>and dogs ARE ALLOWED in pet food. I
>>maintain that they are not.
>
>Again I already proved it with a quote from the FDA.

No, you didn't "prove" it. You're relying on someone else to do "your"
research. You don't know the person in the story from Adam. Do you?



>Here's another article:
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm

A lot of allegations, but no proof. This, btw, is recycled news footage that
makes it's way across the country when they need to fill time during the news.
It made it's way here to the local Portland news last Nov (2002). They made
all kinds of allegations, yet no finger-pointing at any given company--no
proof. I called the news station to find out more information and was told
that they frequently run "human interest" stories from around the country and
that it was just a tape that they provided voice-overs for. According to the
local station, they were given a script to read over the footage to "localize"
it. See what I mean about scare tactics? Fear sells.

>"Still, it is not illegal to use rendered material from dogs and cats in
>pet food. And while no one keeps official figures, there's some evidence
>it happens.
>The Food and Drug Administration has found "very, very low levels" of
>sodium pentobarbital--the chemical used to euthanize animals--in some
>brands of dog food, said Stephen Sundloff, director of the FDA's Center
>for Veterinary Medicine. The agency is investigating whether the traces
>are "of any significance at all," Sundloff said."

Read the quote closely. The first sentence is opinion, not fact. As for the
"some evidence it happens", the pentobarbital was eventually determined to
originate from cattle; it's used to put down cattle (a source of beef found in
some pet foods). Once all of the facts are examined, the truth becomes
self-evident. If you take things out of context, then you run into problems.



>
>On DNA testing for cats and dogs in pet food:
>http://www.supersonicjane.com/rants/pfood.shtml
>

Nice opinion piece, but not all sides of the issue are represented. This gal
says she fed a kibble that had "human grade" ingredients. There is no such
thing in pet foods. So right away she is wrong. Once a pet food ingredient
(regardless of how high quality it is) enters a pet food factory, it
automatically become "unfit for human consumption". That's the rule. If you
were to buy a roast from your butcher, go home, and then decide to return it
for some reason, the butcher (by law) can't resell the meat--it has to get
thrown out...even though there is nothing wrong w/ it. And just the fact that
she is getting "Ann Martin's take on it" suggests that she is picking and
choosing her subject matter. Hardly "fair and balanced".

Anything you quote from Ann Martin should be taken w/ a grain of salt. She has
made a fortune selling fear to unsuspecting and well-meaning pet owners.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>The problem here is that the site is
>>referencing Ann Martin who did her
>>research in the 60s and 70s and is the
>>subject of this whole debate.
>
>The problem here is that you are determined to become the minister of
>*disinformation.*

If that label fit me, I would go around perpuating these kinds of myths. I'm
simply trying to set the record straight and you don't want to believe it.
Whatever.
>
>If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
>started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
>first published in 1997.

You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH. LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
and it was originally published in the late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)
She has simply re-released her book. I don't know why you are being so
argumentative. Do you really believe that dead dogs and cats are ground up and
used in pet foods? Please answer that question. Then prove it. Please tell
me and all the others, which companies to stay away from. Which companies are
the biggest offenders? And then perhaps, since you feel so strongly about the
subject, you would like to start a campaign to get "them" to change their
tactics.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>The problem here is that the site is
>>referencing Ann Martin who did her
>>research in the 60s and 70s and is the
>>subject of this whole debate.
>
>The problem here is that you are determined to become the minister of
>*disinformation.*

If that label fit me, I would go around perpuating these kinds of myths. I'm
simply trying to set the record straight and you don't want to believe it.
Whatever.
>
>If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
>started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
>first published in 1997.

You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH. LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
and it was originally published in the late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)
She has simply re-released her book. I don't know why you are being so
argumentative. Do you really believe that dead dogs and cats are ground up and
used in pet foods? Please answer that question. Then prove it. Please tell
me and all the others, which companies to stay away from. Which companies are
the biggest offenders? And then perhaps, since you feel so strongly about the
subject, you would like to start a campaign to get "them" to change their
tactics.

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:
<snip proof of his utter inabilty to comprehend the written word>

Steve, do you know how to comprehend?
NOWHERE have I made the claim that there are cats and dogs in pet food.
NOWHERE have I made claims that a food labeled as chicken would have
cats or dogs instead. My whole point of the post you quoted was that
using cats and dogs in pet food is *not* illegal.

Gaubster2 claims it is but has yet to post proof. I have not entered the
cats/dogs in pet food debate other than to say it is not illegal for
companies to use them, which you have just confirmed. While I believe it
is "possible" that this happens, I have not formed an opinion on whether
it does because I don't have enough evidence to do so. I've been over
this *several* times in this thread already and if you can't ****ing
figure it out by now then go back to school and learn how to read.
Sheesh.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:
<snip proof of his utter inabilty to comprehend the written word>

Steve, do you know how to comprehend?
NOWHERE have I made the claim that there are cats and dogs in pet food.
NOWHERE have I made claims that a food labeled as chicken would have
cats or dogs instead. My whole point of the post you quoted was that
using cats and dogs in pet food is *not* illegal.

Gaubster2 claims it is but has yet to post proof. I have not entered the
cats/dogs in pet food debate other than to say it is not illegal for
companies to use them, which you have just confirmed. While I believe it
is "possible" that this happens, I have not formed an opinion on whether
it does because I don't have enough evidence to do so. I've been over
this *several* times in this thread already and if you can't ****ing
figure it out by now then go back to school and learn how to read.
Sheesh.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Steve Crane]

wrote in message >...
> Steve wrote:

> Steve, do you know how to comprehend?
> NOWHERE have I made the claim that there are cats and dogs in pet food.
> NOWHERE have I made claims that a food labeled as chicken would have
> cats or dogs instead. My whole point of the post you quoted was that
> using cats and dogs in pet food is *not* illegal.

Let's try again - The substitution of an adulterated ingredient in
place of any legally identified and described ingredient by AAFCO is
ILLEGAL!! No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

You're trying to split hairs here, and tiny thin ones at that. Reality
is that the vast majority of pet foods use a described meat meal -
chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich, duck etc. Very few use the
generic term "meat meal". *AND* even in that case FDA and USDA testing
proved that there was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the hundreds of
foods tested. Yes, it may be "legal" but in reality there are no dead
dogs and cats in 99.999999% of pet food. In most cases I suggest
dealing with reality rather than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.
It's also legal to chase skunks at midnight on a full moon, but I
haven't met any successful skunk hunters. Spend your time on something
that really affects pets, not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

[Steve Crane]

wrote in message >...
> Steve wrote:

> Steve, do you know how to comprehend?
> NOWHERE have I made the claim that there are cats and dogs in pet food.
> NOWHERE have I made claims that a food labeled as chicken would have
> cats or dogs instead. My whole point of the post you quoted was that
> using cats and dogs in pet food is *not* illegal.

Let's try again - The substitution of an adulterated ingredient in
place of any legally identified and described ingredient by AAFCO is
ILLEGAL!! No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

You're trying to split hairs here, and tiny thin ones at that. Reality
is that the vast majority of pet foods use a described meat meal -
chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich, duck etc. Very few use the
generic term "meat meal". *AND* even in that case FDA and USDA testing
proved that there was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the hundreds of
foods tested. Yes, it may be "legal" but in reality there are no dead
dogs and cats in 99.999999% of pet food. In most cases I suggest
dealing with reality rather than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.
It's also legal to chase skunks at midnight on a full moon, but I
haven't met any successful skunk hunters. Spend your time on something
that really affects pets, not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

[Steve Crane]

"k conover" > wrote in message >...
> I don't really want to jump into this flame war, but I believe "human grade"
> ingredients refers to the fact the you will not find the word "by products"
> next to any of their ingredients such as beef, chicken, etc. The words
> "by products"are the slippery slope here where less than savory things can
> be legally put in pet food.

Let's examine this issue a bit. There are two meat meals listed below.

Meat meal A contain 5 times as much calcium and phosphorus as meat, is
3-8% less digestible, contains a narrower spectrum of amino acids in
the profile of the meat meal.

Meat meal B contains 1/5th the amount of calcium and phosphorus, is
3-8% more digestible and contains a broader array of amino acids.

Which one is best?

Inquiring minds might want to know how is is possible for a pet food
product to have a whopping 1.2-1.5% calcium in the final food? Pure
chicken meat contains only 0.01% calcium. There is very little calcium
in the grains, veggies etc. So how does a food end up with calcium at
100 times the level found in the meat meal used? Where does the
calcium come from?



Meat meal A is plain old ordinary lamb meat.
Meat meal B is Low Ash poultry by-products.

Where does the excessive calcium come from - ground up bones in the
chicken meal. The cheaper the meat meal the greater percentage of
ground up bone tissue is in the meat meal. The terms "human grade",
"holistic", "naturally derived" "naturally raised" "NO by-products"
are pure marketing gimmicks dreamed up by the best Madison Avenue has
to offer. They mean absolutely nothing under the law. High levels of
calcium tell you the company is using cheaper grades of meat meal with
high levels of ground up bone.

[Steve Crane]

"k conover" > wrote in message >...
> I don't really want to jump into this flame war, but I believe "human grade"
> ingredients refers to the fact the you will not find the word "by products"
> next to any of their ingredients such as beef, chicken, etc. The words
> "by products"are the slippery slope here where less than savory things can
> be legally put in pet food.

Let's examine this issue a bit. There are two meat meals listed below.

Meat meal A contain 5 times as much calcium and phosphorus as meat, is
3-8% less digestible, contains a narrower spectrum of amino acids in
the profile of the meat meal.

Meat meal B contains 1/5th the amount of calcium and phosphorus, is
3-8% more digestible and contains a broader array of amino acids.

Which one is best?

Inquiring minds might want to know how is is possible for a pet food
product to have a whopping 1.2-1.5% calcium in the final food? Pure
chicken meat contains only 0.01% calcium. There is very little calcium
in the grains, veggies etc. So how does a food end up with calcium at
100 times the level found in the meat meal used? Where does the
calcium come from?



Meat meal A is plain old ordinary lamb meat.
Meat meal B is Low Ash poultry by-products.

Where does the excessive calcium come from - ground up bones in the
chicken meal. The cheaper the meat meal the greater percentage of
ground up bone tissue is in the meat meal. The terms "human grade",
"holistic", "naturally derived" "naturally raised" "NO by-products"
are pure marketing gimmicks dreamed up by the best Madison Avenue has
to offer. They mean absolutely nothing under the law. High levels of
calcium tell you the company is using cheaper grades of meat meal with
high levels of ground up bone.

[Cheryl]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in
:

>>I have not entered the
>>cats/dogs in pet food debate other than to say it is not illegal for
>>companies to use them, which you have just confirmed. While I believe it
>>is "possible" that this happens, I have not formed an opinion on whether
>>it does because I don't have enough evidence to do so.
>
> By posting here, you have entered the debate--whether you know it or not.
>
>

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. I've been following this
thread and trying to stay out and keep finding myself reminding you to read
the whole post before you reply. She *said*... "I have not entered the
cats/dogs in pet food debate *other than* to say it is not illegal [...]

I really am trying to stay out of this. I've been in more than my share of
f'd up threads here lately, and you really don't seem like you're trying to
argue something that isn't true but I can't help but notice that you
disregard some of the wording of posts you're replying to. I'm very
interested in just what is "meat by-products". I've read what Steve said
about "meat meal" but what is a legal description of "meat by-products"?

--
Cheryl

"I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow."
- President Woodrow Wilson

[Cheryl]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in
:

>>I have not entered the
>>cats/dogs in pet food debate other than to say it is not illegal for
>>companies to use them, which you have just confirmed. While I believe it
>>is "possible" that this happens, I have not formed an opinion on whether
>>it does because I don't have enough evidence to do so.
>
> By posting here, you have entered the debate--whether you know it or not.
>
>

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. I've been following this
thread and trying to stay out and keep finding myself reminding you to read
the whole post before you reply. She *said*... "I have not entered the
cats/dogs in pet food debate *other than* to say it is not illegal [...]

I really am trying to stay out of this. I've been in more than my share of
f'd up threads here lately, and you really don't seem like you're trying to
argue something that isn't true but I can't help but notice that you
disregard some of the wording of posts you're replying to. I'm very
interested in just what is "meat by-products". I've read what Steve said
about "meat meal" but what is a legal description of "meat by-products"?

--
Cheryl

"I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow."
- President Woodrow Wilson

[[email protected]]

Steve, who apparently can't comprehend the obvious when presented to him
in the simplest terms wrote:

>Let's try again - The substitution of an
>adulterated ingredient in place of any
>legally identified and described ingredient
>by AAFCO is ILLEGAL!! No ifs, no buts,
>no maybes.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying and I have
made no such claim otherwise.

>You're trying to split hairs here, and tiny
>thin ones at that.

Are you really this stupid Steve? I have *never* said there are cats and
dogs in pet food and your insinuation that I have is totally off base
and idiotic.
Why you are continuing on this path is a mystery.

>Reality is that the vastmajority of pet
>foods use a described meat meal -
>chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
>duck etc. Very few use the generic term
>"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
>FDA and USDA testing proved that there
>was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
>hundreds of foods tested.

According to a scientist at the Department of Fish and Wildlife Forensic
Lab, who I spoke with yesterday, it would be very difficult if not
impossible to determine if there is dog or cat DNA in a rendered,
processed food that also has plant material and any number of other
animal products in it. This is right in line with what one of the
articles I posted said was the opinion of other forensic labs that were
contacted about this. DNA does not survive everything, you know. Since
they are in the business of forensics and are current in this sort of
thing, I'll take their word for it and question the results of the tests
that were done.

Does this mean I am certain there are dogs and cats in some pet foods?
No, it doesn't. Again I will reiterate that I believe it's "possible",
but until I have some sort of evidence that would point to this being
true I'm not going to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Got it?

>Yes, it may be "legal"

And that is the *only* point I made in this thread.

>but in reality there are no dead dogs and
>cats in 99.999999% of pet food.

Ah, so you have left some room there showing that it *can* occur.
Interesting...

>In most
>cases I suggest dealing with reality rather
>than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.

Most? Another interesting use of words.
BTW, most of us do, despite your unfounded insinuations.

>It's also legal to chase skunks at
>midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
>any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
>time on something that really affects pets,
>not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

Here's a clue for you, Steve. The quality of food and its ingredients
*does* affect pets. Funny that you work for Hills and claim to teach
nutrition, yet that point completely eluded your grasp.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve, who apparently can't comprehend the obvious when presented to him
in the simplest terms wrote:

>Let's try again - The substitution of an
>adulterated ingredient in place of any
>legally identified and described ingredient
>by AAFCO is ILLEGAL!! No ifs, no buts,
>no maybes.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying and I have
made no such claim otherwise.

>You're trying to split hairs here, and tiny
>thin ones at that.

Are you really this stupid Steve? I have *never* said there are cats and
dogs in pet food and your insinuation that I have is totally off base
and idiotic.
Why you are continuing on this path is a mystery.

>Reality is that the vastmajority of pet
>foods use a described meat meal -
>chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
>duck etc. Very few use the generic term
>"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
>FDA and USDA testing proved that there
>was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
>hundreds of foods tested.

According to a scientist at the Department of Fish and Wildlife Forensic
Lab, who I spoke with yesterday, it would be very difficult if not
impossible to determine if there is dog or cat DNA in a rendered,
processed food that also has plant material and any number of other
animal products in it. This is right in line with what one of the
articles I posted said was the opinion of other forensic labs that were
contacted about this. DNA does not survive everything, you know. Since
they are in the business of forensics and are current in this sort of
thing, I'll take their word for it and question the results of the tests
that were done.

Does this mean I am certain there are dogs and cats in some pet foods?
No, it doesn't. Again I will reiterate that I believe it's "possible",
but until I have some sort of evidence that would point to this being
true I'm not going to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Got it?

>Yes, it may be "legal"

And that is the *only* point I made in this thread.

>but in reality there are no dead dogs and
>cats in 99.999999% of pet food.

Ah, so you have left some room there showing that it *can* occur.
Interesting...

>In most
>cases I suggest dealing with reality rather
>than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.

Most? Another interesting use of words.
BTW, most of us do, despite your unfounded insinuations.

>It's also legal to chase skunks at
>midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
>any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
>time on something that really affects pets,
>not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

Here's a clue for you, Steve. The quality of food and its ingredients
*does* affect pets. Funny that you work for Hills and claim to teach
nutrition, yet that point completely eluded your grasp.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Cheryl wrote:

<snip accurate assessment of Gaubster2's complete and utter lack of
comprehension skills>

>I'm very interested in just what is "meat
>by-products". I've read what Steve said
>about "meat meal" but what is a legal
>description of "meat by-products"?

The AAFCO definitions (which is about as "legal" as you are going to get
AFAIK):

Meat By-Products - the non rendered, clean parts, other than meat,
derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to,
lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted
low-temperature fatty tissue and stomachs and intestines freed of their
contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hooves.

Meat Meal - the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of
blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen
contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good
processing practices.

The fact that they use the term "mammal" without specifics allows that
*any* mammal could be included. By this broad definition, if a rendering
company were to choose to do so, the meat meal or meat by-products they
supplied could certainly contain cats and/or dogs.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Cheryl wrote:

<snip accurate assessment of Gaubster2's complete and utter lack of
comprehension skills>

>I'm very interested in just what is "meat
>by-products". I've read what Steve said
>about "meat meal" but what is a legal
>description of "meat by-products"?

The AAFCO definitions (which is about as "legal" as you are going to get
AFAIK):

Meat By-Products - the non rendered, clean parts, other than meat,
derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to,
lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted
low-temperature fatty tissue and stomachs and intestines freed of their
contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hooves.

Meat Meal - the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of
blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen
contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good
processing practices.

The fact that they use the term "mammal" without specifics allows that
*any* mammal could be included. By this broad definition, if a rendering
company were to choose to do so, the meat meal or meat by-products they
supplied could certainly contain cats and/or dogs.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

>Reality is that the vast majority of pet
>foods use a described meat meal -
>chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
>duck etc. Very few use the generic term
>"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
>FDA and USDA testing proved that there
>was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
>hundreds of foods tested.

First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
of foods were tested.

So, accuracy of such testing notwithstanding (and apparently the tests
were developed by the testers and not an outside source), which is it?

Hundreds of foods that contain "meat meal" or hundreds of foods that
contain different types of meals?

If the foods tested contained specific types of animal meals - poultry
or beef for example - then wouldn't testing for dog/cat DNA be moot
other than to confirm that the meals were as described? It would be easy
to say Brand X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if the meat ingredient
is chicken meal of course you would not expect to find it.

Can you provide a list of the foods that were tested?

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

>Reality is that the vast majority of pet
>foods use a described meat meal -
>chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
>duck etc. Very few use the generic term
>"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
>FDA and USDA testing proved that there
>was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
>hundreds of foods tested.

First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
of foods were tested.

So, accuracy of such testing notwithstanding (and apparently the tests
were developed by the testers and not an outside source), which is it?

Hundreds of foods that contain "meat meal" or hundreds of foods that
contain different types of meals?

If the foods tested contained specific types of animal meals - poultry
or beef for example - then wouldn't testing for dog/cat DNA be moot
other than to confirm that the meals were as described? It would be easy
to say Brand X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if the meat ingredient
is chicken meal of course you would not expect to find it.

Can you provide a list of the foods that were tested?

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Ann Martin]

Good Morning,

My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
"Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.

This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.
Because these posts relate to the DNA testing I won't get into the
pentobarbital issue at this point.

First, there is no doubt that euthanized dogs and cats are rendered
and used in pet foods (meat meal). In I letter from the CVM they did
admit that they were aware that this is happening and that it is a
means of disposal for unwanted pets. In the last couple of years
three rendering plants have stated that they will no longer render
companion animals for use in pet food. Be assured these are just
three out of many, many rendering plants that continue this practice.

In a report released by the FDA/CVM in February of 2002 they stated
that they found no dog and cat DNA in the foods they tested. They
further stated that the pentobarbital was coming from cattle and
horses that were euthanized with this drug. I contacted agriculture
vets all over the U.S. and Canada and asked if they used this drug for
cattle and horses. Very few stated that cattle are ever euthanized
with pentobarbital, "it's cost prohibitive." As with cattle, few
horses are euthanized. Because the report was so vague I requested,
under the FOIA, all documentation relating to this study. This was
two days after their report came out. After waiting months I
contacted the Ombudsman for both the CVM and FDA. In December of 2002
I received a report that was "similar" to the DNA testing I
reequested. If I had of wanted something similar that is what I would
have requested. In January of 2003 the Ombudsman for the FDA advised
me that my request for the information had been denied. In February
of 2003, I filed an appeal, drafted by a lawyer in the U.S. (I'm
Canadian), requesting that this information be released. To date,
I've received nothing.

I have to question what this agency is hiding. If all was above board
there would be no need to keep this report confidential.

Hope this sheds a little more light on the topic.

[Ann Martin]

Good Morning,

My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
"Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.

This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.
Because these posts relate to the DNA testing I won't get into the
pentobarbital issue at this point.

First, there is no doubt that euthanized dogs and cats are rendered
and used in pet foods (meat meal). In I letter from the CVM they did
admit that they were aware that this is happening and that it is a
means of disposal for unwanted pets. In the last couple of years
three rendering plants have stated that they will no longer render
companion animals for use in pet food. Be assured these are just
three out of many, many rendering plants that continue this practice.

In a report released by the FDA/CVM in February of 2002 they stated
that they found no dog and cat DNA in the foods they tested. They
further stated that the pentobarbital was coming from cattle and
horses that were euthanized with this drug. I contacted agriculture
vets all over the U.S. and Canada and asked if they used this drug for
cattle and horses. Very few stated that cattle are ever euthanized
with pentobarbital, "it's cost prohibitive." As with cattle, few
horses are euthanized. Because the report was so vague I requested,
under the FOIA, all documentation relating to this study. This was
two days after their report came out. After waiting months I
contacted the Ombudsman for both the CVM and FDA. In December of 2002
I received a report that was "similar" to the DNA testing I
reequested. If I had of wanted something similar that is what I would
have requested. In January of 2003 the Ombudsman for the FDA advised
me that my request for the information had been denied. In February
of 2003, I filed an appeal, drafted by a lawyer in the U.S. (I'm
Canadian), requesting that this information be released. To date,
I've received nothing.

I have to question what this agency is hiding. If all was above board
there would be no need to keep this report confidential.

Hope this sheds a little more light on the topic.

[Ann Martin]

I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.

May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
wording? The only regulations that I am aware of within the pet food
industry are those that govern the labeling text. As far as the
ingredients used, anything is fair game. The AAFCO sets guidelines
and it is up to each state to adopt these guidelines. In reading the
"ingredient definitions" which the AAFCO lists, I'd be a little
concerned. "hydrolyzed hair," hydrolyzed poultry feathers," Spray
dried animal blood," "dehydrated garbage," "dried ruminant waste,"
"dried swine waste," and the list goes on. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly
with the CVM, advised that these ingredient definitions applied both
to livestock feed and pet food. The CVM regulates labeling text and
drugs used in pet foods, nothing more.

If you are purchasing a product containing meat meal ask the company
if they actual test the raw materials to ascertain the sources of
protein. Companies claim that their foods contain no euthanized
companion animals. They ask that the rendering plants sign a document
that states there are no dogs and cats in the raw material. Unless
the pet food companies actually test the raw material the document is
not worth the paper it is written on.

Ann


> You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
> NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
> that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
> of the term and the deception of consumers.
>
> Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
> them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
> organic- wonder why?
>
> Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
> be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
> claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...
>
> "Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
> sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
> When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
> move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
> everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
> created by a fanciful marketing department.

[Ann Martin]

I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.

May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
wording? The only regulations that I am aware of within the pet food
industry are those that govern the labeling text. As far as the
ingredients used, anything is fair game. The AAFCO sets guidelines
and it is up to each state to adopt these guidelines. In reading the
"ingredient definitions" which the AAFCO lists, I'd be a little
concerned. "hydrolyzed hair," hydrolyzed poultry feathers," Spray
dried animal blood," "dehydrated garbage," "dried ruminant waste,"
"dried swine waste," and the list goes on. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly
with the CVM, advised that these ingredient definitions applied both
to livestock feed and pet food. The CVM regulates labeling text and
drugs used in pet foods, nothing more.

If you are purchasing a product containing meat meal ask the company
if they actual test the raw materials to ascertain the sources of
protein. Companies claim that their foods contain no euthanized
companion animals. They ask that the rendering plants sign a document
that states there are no dogs and cats in the raw material. Unless
the pet food companies actually test the raw material the document is
not worth the paper it is written on.

Ann


> You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
> NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
> that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
> of the term and the deception of consumers.
>
> Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
> them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
> organic- wonder why?
>
> Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
> be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
> claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...
>
> "Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
> sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
> When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
> move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
> everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
> created by a fanciful marketing department.

[kate]

Dr Ms Martin,
I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for all of the research you are
doing on this. It's something I had always wondered about until I read
your book. It makes sense that in a culture where cutting cast is the
name of the game, that all of our trash would go into the food of pets
who cant protest it.
Can you also talk about the larger companies doing the testing on
animals and how you found out about it, why they test, etc? Thats one
of the other big topics on this thread.
Thanks so much for all of your work!
kate

[kate]

Dr Ms Martin,
I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for all of the research you are
doing on this. It's something I had always wondered about until I read
your book. It makes sense that in a culture where cutting cast is the
name of the game, that all of our trash would go into the food of pets
who cant protest it.
Can you also talk about the larger companies doing the testing on
animals and how you found out about it, why they test, etc? Thats one
of the other big topics on this thread.
Thanks so much for all of your work!
kate

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Ther is an MSDS on it that explains
>> exactly what it is. Go to:
>> www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
>> ds146e.html
>
>Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work. This also does nothing to
>prove your claim that a specific company, namely OMH, uses bacteria
>fromfeces in their foods. Cite?
>

There's something called "real life". I don't sit in front of my computer and
think that the internet is all there is to life. Try this:
www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms

If you would actually go out into the real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
door and pick up a bag of OMH and look at the ingredient's list you would see
exactly what I'm talking about.

>> I'm absolutely positive that the book I
>> saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
>> and was published in/about 1979.
>
>First it was the 60's/70's, then the 70's then the late 70's almost
>1980, now it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you are certain you swa
>this book then you shouldn't have a problem providing an ISBN hmmmm? A
>mention of it somewhere, anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

You're spinning again. The way you go on about reading comprehension, you'd
think you would do a little of it yourself: In the late 80s I saw a book from
Ann Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody
would. It was copyrighted 1979. Her research was done prior (obviously) to
that time in order for it to be in her book.

>Do you have *any* comprehension skills? If I haven't formed an opinion
>as to whether there are companies that use dogs and cats in pet food how
>could I possibly point a finger at a company for using them? Your ill
>logic is astounding.

You're staddling the fence. I'm trying to pin you down on your opinion by
asking you a direct question. You argue strongly that it "happens" since you
don't think that it is illegal and yet you don't have any idea if it ever does
"happen". You want to have both sides of the issue.

>>If it happens,
>> please tell me which companies/products
>> are doing it.
>
>See above. Good god, I don't think I have ever come across someone with
>such an astounding lack of comprehension skills.
>

Perhaps you should read "How to Win Friends, and Influence People", and no, I
don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure you can look it up on the internet
though.

Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to test a theory of mine: Who did you
vote for in the last Presidential Election?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Ther is an MSDS on it that explains
>> exactly what it is. Go to:
>> www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
>> ds146e.html
>
>Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work. This also does nothing to
>prove your claim that a specific company, namely OMH, uses bacteria
>fromfeces in their foods. Cite?
>

There's something called "real life". I don't sit in front of my computer and
think that the internet is all there is to life. Try this:
www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms

If you would actually go out into the real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
door and pick up a bag of OMH and look at the ingredient's list you would see
exactly what I'm talking about.

>> I'm absolutely positive that the book I
>> saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
>> and was published in/about 1979.
>
>First it was the 60's/70's, then the 70's then the late 70's almost
>1980, now it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you are certain you swa
>this book then you shouldn't have a problem providing an ISBN hmmmm? A
>mention of it somewhere, anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

You're spinning again. The way you go on about reading comprehension, you'd
think you would do a little of it yourself: In the late 80s I saw a book from
Ann Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody
would. It was copyrighted 1979. Her research was done prior (obviously) to
that time in order for it to be in her book.

>Do you have *any* comprehension skills? If I haven't formed an opinion
>as to whether there are companies that use dogs and cats in pet food how
>could I possibly point a finger at a company for using them? Your ill
>logic is astounding.

You're staddling the fence. I'm trying to pin you down on your opinion by
asking you a direct question. You argue strongly that it "happens" since you
don't think that it is illegal and yet you don't have any idea if it ever does
"happen". You want to have both sides of the issue.

>>If it happens,
>> please tell me which companies/products
>> are doing it.
>
>See above. Good god, I don't think I have ever come across someone with
>such an astounding lack of comprehension skills.
>

Perhaps you should read "How to Win Friends, and Influence People", and no, I
don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure you can look it up on the internet
though.

Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to test a theory of mine: Who did you
vote for in the last Presidential Election?

[GAUBSTER2]

>First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
>of foods were tested.

Hundreds of foods were tested--just in case. Yet nothing was found. But
that's not good enough for you even though you "don't have an opinion". Just
continue to ignore the facts and think it's all a conspiracy if that's what
floats your boat.

[GAUBSTER2]

>First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
>of foods were tested.

Hundreds of foods were tested--just in case. Yet nothing was found. But
that's not good enough for you even though you "don't have an opinion". Just
continue to ignore the facts and think it's all a conspiracy if that's what
floats your boat.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. I've been following this
>thread and trying to stay out and keep finding myself reminding you to read
>the whole post before you reply. She *said*... "I have not entered the
>cats/dogs in pet food debate *other than* to say it is not illegal [...]
>

Cheryl, you're parsing words. Once she jumps into the debate by challenging my
assertions, she's in it no matter how she tries to "wiggle" out. You can be in
a debate and not have your mind made up yet. The fact that she has become rude
and insulting along the way speaks volumes about her.

I try not to insult others just because I disagree w/ someone. I've said it is
illegal to use dogs and cats in pet foods. Megan doesn't think so. Others
have made wild allegations and then can't back them up w/ actual times, dates,
places, examples, names, etc. Then it all degenerates into insults and name
calling. Gimme a break.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. I've been following this
>thread and trying to stay out and keep finding myself reminding you to read
>the whole post before you reply. She *said*... "I have not entered the
>cats/dogs in pet food debate *other than* to say it is not illegal [...]
>

Cheryl, you're parsing words. Once she jumps into the debate by challenging my
assertions, she's in it no matter how she tries to "wiggle" out. You can be in
a debate and not have your mind made up yet. The fact that she has become rude
and insulting along the way speaks volumes about her.

I try not to insult others just because I disagree w/ someone. I've said it is
illegal to use dogs and cats in pet foods. Megan doesn't think so. Others
have made wild allegations and then can't back them up w/ actual times, dates,
places, examples, names, etc. Then it all degenerates into insults and name
calling. Gimme a break.

[Ann Martin]

To set the record straight, my first book, "Food Pets Die For:" was
published in 1997. My second book, "Protect Your Pet:" was published
in 2001 and the updated edition of "Food Pets Die For:" was published
in January 2003.

As for dogs and cats being used in pet food, yes, there is proof.
Valley Protein, a East Coast rendering plant that picked up euthanized
pets from a number of shelters in the area, rendered them and this
rendered material was being sold to pet food companies, one of them
being Purina.

Another large rendering plant in Quebec admitted in early 2001, that
they were rendering the pets and this material was being sold to pet
food companies. They decided, because of bad publicity, they would
cease this practice. I contacted the Ministry of Agriculture in
Quebec and asked if others were still under taking this practice. The
reply was "Yes", Maple Leaf Foods which also owns Rothsay rendering
and Shur-Gain pet food.

Anyone who thinks this is not happening better get a reality check.
Again, THIS PRACTICE IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Ann Martin



(GAUBSTER2) wrote,
>
> If that label fit me, I would go around perpuating these kinds of myths. I'm
> simply trying to set the record straight and you don't want to believe it.
> Whatever.
> >
> >If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
> >started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
> >first published in 1997.
>
> You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH. LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
> and it was originally published in the late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)
> She has simply re-released her book. I don't know why you are being so
> argumentative. Do you really believe that dead dogs and cats are ground up and
> used in pet foods? Please answer that question. Then prove it. Please tell
> me and all the others, which companies to stay away from. Which companies are
> the biggest offenders? And then perhaps, since you feel so strongly about the
> subject, you would like to start a campaign to get "them" to change their
> tactics.

[Ann Martin]

To set the record straight, my first book, "Food Pets Die For:" was
published in 1997. My second book, "Protect Your Pet:" was published
in 2001 and the updated edition of "Food Pets Die For:" was published
in January 2003.

As for dogs and cats being used in pet food, yes, there is proof.
Valley Protein, a East Coast rendering plant that picked up euthanized
pets from a number of shelters in the area, rendered them and this
rendered material was being sold to pet food companies, one of them
being Purina.

Another large rendering plant in Quebec admitted in early 2001, that
they were rendering the pets and this material was being sold to pet
food companies. They decided, because of bad publicity, they would
cease this practice. I contacted the Ministry of Agriculture in
Quebec and asked if others were still under taking this practice. The
reply was "Yes", Maple Leaf Foods which also owns Rothsay rendering
and Shur-Gain pet food.

Anyone who thinks this is not happening better get a reality check.
Again, THIS PRACTICE IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Ann Martin



(GAUBSTER2) wrote,
>
> If that label fit me, I would go around perpuating these kinds of myths. I'm
> simply trying to set the record straight and you don't want to believe it.
> Whatever.
> >
> >If you can't post accurately, don't post at all. Ann Martin first
> >started investigating the pet food industry in 1990, and her book was
> >first published in 1997.
>
> You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH. LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
> and it was originally published in the late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)
> She has simply re-released her book. I don't know why you are being so
> argumentative. Do you really believe that dead dogs and cats are ground up and
> used in pet foods? Please answer that question. Then prove it. Please tell
> me and all the others, which companies to stay away from. Which companies are
> the biggest offenders? And then perhaps, since you feel so strongly about the
> subject, you would like to start a campaign to get "them" to change their
> tactics.

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>> Just as I expected. A link that doesn't
>> work. This also does nothing to prove
>> your claim that a specific company,
>> namely OMH, uses bacteria fromfeces in
>> their foods. Cite?

> There's something called "real life". I
> don't sit in front of my computer and
> think that the internet is all there is
> to life. Try this:
> www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
>

Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work.

> If you would actually go out into the
> real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
> door and pick up a bag of OMH and look
> at the ingredient's list you would see
> exactly what I'm talking about.

*You* are making the claim. YOU explain what you're talking about. As
usual you are expecting others to back up your claims for you.

>>> I'm absolutely positive that the book I
>>> saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
>>> and was published in/about 1979.
>> First it was the 60's/70's, then the
>> 70's then the late 70's almost 1980, now
>> it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you
>> are certain you saw this book then you
>> shouldn't have a problem providing an
>> ISBN hmmmm? A mention of it somewhere,
>> anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

> You're spinning again.

No, that's what you said.

>The way you go on
> about reading comprehension, you'd think
> you would do a little of it yourself: In
> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
> was done prior (obviously) to that time
> in order for it to be in her book.

And still you have not provided any evidence that this is true. Since
Ms. Martin has been kind enough to join the discussion and give details
about her experiences and research, why don't you ask her yourself?
(although I'm sure you'll tell her she's wrong, too.)

>> Do you have *any* comprehension
>>skills?
>> If I haven't formed an opinion as to
>> whether there are companies that use
>> dogs and cats in pet food how could I
>> possibly point a finger at a company for
>> using them? Your ill logic is
> astounding.

> You're staddling the fence. I'm trying
> to pin you down on your opinion by
> asking you a direct question.

I have already told you I haven't enough evidence to form an opinion one
way or another. At this point I believe it's "possible." I am going to
buy Ms. Martin's book later today and see what she says and look at her
cites and documentation, which she seems more than happy to provide,
unlike yourself and apparently the U.S. government.

>You argue
> strongly that it "happens" since you
> don't think that it is illegal and yet
> you don't have any idea if it ever does
> "happen". You want to have both sides of
> the issue.

No, again you can't comprehend. Saying it is not illegal to use cats and
dogs in pet food is NOT the same as arguing "strongly" that pet food
contains cats and dogs. I have done no such thing. Saying it is
"possible" is not even remotely the same thing as saying "it happens."
If you believe that then quote me where I "argued strongly" that "it
happens."

>>> If it happens,
>>> =A0please tell me which companies/products
>>> =A0are doing it.

>> See above. Good god, I don't think I
>>> have ever come across someone with such
>> an astounding lack of comprehension
>> skills.

>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>> you can look it up on the internet
>> though.

So, again, you can't provide a source and expect someone else to look it
up. Typical.


> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
> for in the last Presidential Election?

Ah, the last resort of someone on the losing end of an argument - when
you can't provide facts attack someone's politics.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>> Just as I expected. A link that doesn't
>> work. This also does nothing to prove
>> your claim that a specific company,
>> namely OMH, uses bacteria fromfeces in
>> their foods. Cite?

> There's something called "real life". I
> don't sit in front of my computer and
> think that the internet is all there is
> to life. Try this:
> www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
>

Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work.

> If you would actually go out into the
> real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
> door and pick up a bag of OMH and look
> at the ingredient's list you would see
> exactly what I'm talking about.

*You* are making the claim. YOU explain what you're talking about. As
usual you are expecting others to back up your claims for you.

>>> I'm absolutely positive that the book I
>>> saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
>>> and was published in/about 1979.
>> First it was the 60's/70's, then the
>> 70's then the late 70's almost 1980, now
>> it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you
>> are certain you saw this book then you
>> shouldn't have a problem providing an
>> ISBN hmmmm? A mention of it somewhere,
>> anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

> You're spinning again.

No, that's what you said.

>The way you go on
> about reading comprehension, you'd think
> you would do a little of it yourself: In
> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
> was done prior (obviously) to that time
> in order for it to be in her book.

And still you have not provided any evidence that this is true. Since
Ms. Martin has been kind enough to join the discussion and give details
about her experiences and research, why don't you ask her yourself?
(although I'm sure you'll tell her she's wrong, too.)

>> Do you have *any* comprehension
>>skills?
>> If I haven't formed an opinion as to
>> whether there are companies that use
>> dogs and cats in pet food how could I
>> possibly point a finger at a company for
>> using them? Your ill logic is
> astounding.

> You're staddling the fence. I'm trying
> to pin you down on your opinion by
> asking you a direct question.

I have already told you I haven't enough evidence to form an opinion one
way or another. At this point I believe it's "possible." I am going to
buy Ms. Martin's book later today and see what she says and look at her
cites and documentation, which she seems more than happy to provide,
unlike yourself and apparently the U.S. government.

>You argue
> strongly that it "happens" since you
> don't think that it is illegal and yet
> you don't have any idea if it ever does
> "happen". You want to have both sides of
> the issue.

No, again you can't comprehend. Saying it is not illegal to use cats and
dogs in pet food is NOT the same as arguing "strongly" that pet food
contains cats and dogs. I have done no such thing. Saying it is
"possible" is not even remotely the same thing as saying "it happens."
If you believe that then quote me where I "argued strongly" that "it
happens."

>>> If it happens,
>>> =A0please tell me which companies/products
>>> =A0are doing it.

>> See above. Good god, I don't think I
>>> have ever come across someone with such
>> an astounding lack of comprehension
>> skills.

>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>> you can look it up on the internet
>> though.

So, again, you can't provide a source and expect someone else to look it
up. Typical.


> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
> for in the last Presidential Election?

Ah, the last resort of someone on the losing end of an argument - when
you can't provide facts attack someone's politics.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Steve Crane]

(Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> Good Morning,
>
> My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
> "Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
> testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.
>
> This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
> more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
> was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
> DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
> in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
> testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
> many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.


With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently,
false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels"
of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level
discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per
BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose".

The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out
possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb,
beef, etc cannot contain dead dogs and cats. While you may find some
lower priced foods with the generic "meat meal" ingredient, they are
rare to non-existant in the premium pet food business. Even those pet
foods which used the generic term "meat meal" cannot in any way to be
said to definitively contain dead dogs and cats. Regardless of the DNA
findings in the report, pet foods that label thier ingredients as a
specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and
cats.

[Steve Crane]

(Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> Good Morning,
>
> My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
> "Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
> testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.
>
> This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
> more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
> was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
> DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
> in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
> testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
> many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.


With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently,
false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels"
of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level
discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per
BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose".

The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out
possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb,
beef, etc cannot contain dead dogs and cats. While you may find some
lower priced foods with the generic "meat meal" ingredient, they are
rare to non-existant in the premium pet food business. Even those pet
foods which used the generic term "meat meal" cannot in any way to be
said to definitively contain dead dogs and cats. Regardless of the DNA
findings in the report, pet foods that label thier ingredients as a
specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and
cats.

[Steve Crane]

wrote in message >...
> Steve wrote:
>
> >Reality is that the vast majority of pet
> >foods use a described meat meal -
> >chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
> >duck etc. Very few use the generic term
> >"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
> >FDA and USDA testing proved that there
> >was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
> >hundreds of foods tested.
>
> First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
> of foods were tested.

Very few premiun pet food contain the generic term "meat meal"

Hundreds of foods were tested, including ones which contained generic
meat meals and those that contained chicken, beef etc.



>
> So, accuracy of such testing notwithstanding (and apparently the tests
> were developed by the testers and not an outside source), which is it?

The testing was conducted by the USDA and FDA


> Hundreds of foods that contain "meat meal" or hundreds of foods that
> contain different types of meals?

Answered above

> If the foods tested contained specific types of animal meals - poultry
> or beef for example - then wouldn't testing for dog/cat DNA be moot
> other than to confirm that the meals were as described? It would be easy
> to say Brand X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if the meat ingredient
> is chicken meal of course you would not expect to find it.

Exactly my point - It would be illegal for a food to be adulterated
with an ingredient that is not the ingredient claimed. You cannot
subsitute dead dogs and cats for chicken, beef, poprk etc. Unless the
food contains the generic term "meat meal" it cannot possibly contain
dead dogs and cats.


> Can you provide a list of the foods that were tested?


I will try to copy paste the list below.

Bites and Bones
High Protein
Adult Formulation
Kibbles and Munchy Morsels
Puppy Formulation
Bite Size Meal Chicken and Rice
Kibble Select
Adult
Kibbles Dog Food
Come and Get it--Beef, Chicken, Liver
Alpo Lamb Meal Rice and Barley
Alpo Complete Puppy
KenL Ration Gravy Train Beef Liver and Bacon
Kibbles N Bits Original, Chicken and Beef
Kibbles and Bits Beefy Bits
Kibbles and Bits Puppy
KenL Ration Choice Blend
Reward Dinner Rounds
Science Diet Senior, 7+, small bites
Science Diet Large Breed Adult
Science Diet Large Breed Canine, Puppies
Science Diet Sensitive Stomach
Science Diet Sensitive Skin
Lamb and Rice Formula
Easy to Digest
Lifestages Senior Lamb and Rice
Special Diet Formulation 300
Special Diet Formulation 200
Puppy Formula, Beef Flavor
Premium Chicken and Rice
Puppy Formula, Chicken and Rice
High Performance Chicken and Rice
Lean Formula
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Meaty Chunks Mealtime
MealTime Large Crunchy Bites
Mealtime with Lamb and Rice
Puppy
Master Diet Puppy Formulation
Master Diet Adult Formulation
Beef and Rice, Adult Formulation
Dog Chow Little Bites
Puppy chow, Beef Flavor
Kibbles and Chunks Beef Flavor
Dog Chow Senior 7+
One Beef and Rice
Butchers Blend
Dog Food Chunk Style
High Protein Dog Meal
High Protein
Puppy food
Tasty Nuggets
Small Bites
Lamb Meal and Rice
Kibbles and Munchy Chews
Select Adult Dog Formulation (Nutra Balance)
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style Dog Food
Total High Energy Chicken and Rice
Total Pet Kibbles
Krunchy Kibble
Krunchy Kibble
Bite Size Dog Food
Bite Size Meal
Bite Size Meal
Fieldmaster
Fieldmaster
Come'n Get It
Alpo
Alpo
Come'n Get It
Kibbles 'n Bits Jerky
Kibbles 'n Bits Jerky
Kibbles 'n Bits 'n Bits 'n Bits
Kibbles 'n Bits 'n Bits 'n Bits
Kibbles 'n Bits Puppy
Kibbles 'n Bits Lean
Kibbles 'n Bits Lean
Gravy Train Beef, Liver and Bacon Flavor
Gravy Train Beef, Liver and Bacon Flavor
Gravy Train
Gravy Train
Premium Dog Food
Premium Dog Food
Premium
Premium
Krunchy Bites & Bones
Premium Formula with Chicken Protein and Rice
Premium Formula with Chicken Protein and Rice
High Performance with Chicken Protein and Rice
High Performance with Chicken Protein and Rice
Krunchy Bites & Bones
Lean Formula
Lean Formula
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Dinner Rounds Soft Dry Dog Food
Mealtime
Mealtime
Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Beef and Rice Adult
Beef and Rice Adult
Beef and Rice Puppy
Beef and Rice Puppy
Mainstay
Mainstay
Dog Chow
Little Bites
Little Bites
High Pro
High Pro
Grrravy
Grrravy
Dog Chow Senior
Dog Chow Senior
Kibbles and Cheezy Chews
Kibbles and Cheezy Chews
Kibbles and Chunks
Kibbles and Chunks
Butcher's Blend
Butcher's Blend
Dog Chow
Fit & Trim
Fit & Trim
Dinner Rounds Dog Food
Dinner Rounds Dog Food
High Protein Dog Meal
High Protein Dog Meal
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Gravy Style Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style
Gravy Style Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Chunk Premium Quality
Chunk Premium Quality
Bite Size Ration
Bite Size Ration
Chunky and Moist
Puppy Food
Crunchy Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
High Protein Dog Food
Kibbles Variety Mix

[Steve Crane]

wrote in message >...
> Steve wrote:
>
> >Reality is that the vast majority of pet
> >foods use a described meat meal -
> >chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
> >duck etc. Very few use the generic term
> >"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
> >FDA and USDA testing proved that there
> >was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
> >hundreds of foods tested.
>
> First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
> of foods were tested.

Very few premiun pet food contain the generic term "meat meal"

Hundreds of foods were tested, including ones which contained generic
meat meals and those that contained chicken, beef etc.



>
> So, accuracy of such testing notwithstanding (and apparently the tests
> were developed by the testers and not an outside source), which is it?

The testing was conducted by the USDA and FDA


> Hundreds of foods that contain "meat meal" or hundreds of foods that
> contain different types of meals?

Answered above

> If the foods tested contained specific types of animal meals - poultry
> or beef for example - then wouldn't testing for dog/cat DNA be moot
> other than to confirm that the meals were as described? It would be easy
> to say Brand X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if the meat ingredient
> is chicken meal of course you would not expect to find it.

Exactly my point - It would be illegal for a food to be adulterated
with an ingredient that is not the ingredient claimed. You cannot
subsitute dead dogs and cats for chicken, beef, poprk etc. Unless the
food contains the generic term "meat meal" it cannot possibly contain
dead dogs and cats.


> Can you provide a list of the foods that were tested?


I will try to copy paste the list below.

Bites and Bones
High Protein
Adult Formulation
Kibbles and Munchy Morsels
Puppy Formulation
Bite Size Meal Chicken and Rice
Kibble Select
Adult
Kibbles Dog Food
Come and Get it--Beef, Chicken, Liver
Alpo Lamb Meal Rice and Barley
Alpo Complete Puppy
KenL Ration Gravy Train Beef Liver and Bacon
Kibbles N Bits Original, Chicken and Beef
Kibbles and Bits Beefy Bits
Kibbles and Bits Puppy
KenL Ration Choice Blend
Reward Dinner Rounds
Science Diet Senior, 7+, small bites
Science Diet Large Breed Adult
Science Diet Large Breed Canine, Puppies
Science Diet Sensitive Stomach
Science Diet Sensitive Skin
Lamb and Rice Formula
Easy to Digest
Lifestages Senior Lamb and Rice
Special Diet Formulation 300
Special Diet Formulation 200
Puppy Formula, Beef Flavor
Premium Chicken and Rice
Puppy Formula, Chicken and Rice
High Performance Chicken and Rice
Lean Formula
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Meaty Chunks Mealtime
MealTime Large Crunchy Bites
Mealtime with Lamb and Rice
Puppy
Master Diet Puppy Formulation
Master Diet Adult Formulation
Beef and Rice, Adult Formulation
Dog Chow Little Bites
Puppy chow, Beef Flavor
Kibbles and Chunks Beef Flavor
Dog Chow Senior 7+
One Beef and Rice
Butchers Blend
Dog Food Chunk Style
High Protein Dog Meal
High Protein
Puppy food
Tasty Nuggets
Small Bites
Lamb Meal and Rice
Kibbles and Munchy Chews
Select Adult Dog Formulation (Nutra Balance)
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style Dog Food
Total High Energy Chicken and Rice
Total Pet Kibbles
Krunchy Kibble
Krunchy Kibble
Bite Size Dog Food
Bite Size Meal
Bite Size Meal
Fieldmaster
Fieldmaster
Come'n Get It
Alpo
Alpo
Come'n Get It
Kibbles 'n Bits Jerky
Kibbles 'n Bits Jerky
Kibbles 'n Bits 'n Bits 'n Bits
Kibbles 'n Bits 'n Bits 'n Bits
Kibbles 'n Bits Puppy
Kibbles 'n Bits Lean
Kibbles 'n Bits Lean
Gravy Train Beef, Liver and Bacon Flavor
Gravy Train Beef, Liver and Bacon Flavor
Gravy Train
Gravy Train
Premium Dog Food
Premium Dog Food
Premium
Premium
Krunchy Bites & Bones
Premium Formula with Chicken Protein and Rice
Premium Formula with Chicken Protein and Rice
High Performance with Chicken Protein and Rice
High Performance with Chicken Protein and Rice
Krunchy Bites & Bones
Lean Formula
Lean Formula
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Meaty Chunks and Gravy
Dinner Rounds Soft Dry Dog Food
Mealtime
Mealtime
Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Beef and Rice Adult
Beef and Rice Adult
Beef and Rice Puppy
Beef and Rice Puppy
Mainstay
Mainstay
Dog Chow
Little Bites
Little Bites
High Pro
High Pro
Grrravy
Grrravy
Dog Chow Senior
Dog Chow Senior
Kibbles and Cheezy Chews
Kibbles and Cheezy Chews
Kibbles and Chunks
Kibbles and Chunks
Butcher's Blend
Butcher's Blend
Dog Chow
Fit & Trim
Fit & Trim
Dinner Rounds Dog Food
Dinner Rounds Dog Food
High Protein Dog Meal
High Protein Dog Meal
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Gravy Style Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style
Gravy Style Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
Chunk Style
Chunk Style
Chunk Premium Quality
Chunk Premium Quality
Bite Size Ration
Bite Size Ration
Chunky and Moist
Puppy Food
Crunchy Dog Food
Gravy Style Dog Food
High Protein Dog Food
Kibbles Variety Mix

[Steve Crane]

(Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.


Mrs. Martin,
Under US law the terms "human grade" "holistic", "naturally raised"
mean absolutely NOTHING. I could take used crankcase oil, mix it with
human sewage and bottle it, claiming it was "human grade". There is
nothing in the law that defines what that term means - accordingly the
term means nothing under the law. Absent a legal definition, the term
means nothing. Under USDA and FDA law no meat meal of any kind that
leaves the human production stream continues to be "human grade". If
you take a steak out of the grocery store and then return it, it is no
longer legally fit for human consumption. That's the level of
restriction that is placed on the human food chain in the US. Once
that meat meal leaves the human food production stream it is no longer
"human edible". Once meat leaves the human food supplpy chain and
crosses the dock into a pet food production plant it is no longer
"human grade".


>
> May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
> wording?

In point of fact the law has been slow to catch up to busy marketing
geniuses misleading consumers. For years we had pet food companies who
claimed they were "organic". Then the law stepped in and defined
organic, and guess what suddenly all those pet food companies dropped
claims of being "organic". The next marketing wizard term was
"natural", then the law stepped in again and defined the term
"natural" and guess what, 99% of the companies that used to claim to
be "natural" had to drop that claim from the bag. The marketing
geniuses simply move on to the next term to fool consumers with. Right
now that term is "human grade". The FDA, USDA and AAFCO are
considering regulations to define this term. What do you expect will
happen when it is becomes legally defined? Just watch as that claim
disappears into the sunset as well. Only to be replaced with the next
undefined term to fool consumers with. It's marketing game of staying
one step ahead of the regulators. What term can they use legally and
convey the same message? If all those companies truly were "organic"
or "natural" why aren't they continuing to use the same claims?
Because they never were in the first place. Does anyone think for a
second these same companies suddenly stopped making foods that were
"organic" and "natural"? Not a chance.

You have a choice here. You can graduate from the 3rd grade elementary
level of assesing food by looking at ingredients to the college level
of looking at the nutrients they provide, or continue to be a victim
of slick marketing geniuses with the next new undefined descriptive
word.

[Steve Crane]

(Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.


Mrs. Martin,
Under US law the terms "human grade" "holistic", "naturally raised"
mean absolutely NOTHING. I could take used crankcase oil, mix it with
human sewage and bottle it, claiming it was "human grade". There is
nothing in the law that defines what that term means - accordingly the
term means nothing under the law. Absent a legal definition, the term
means nothing. Under USDA and FDA law no meat meal of any kind that
leaves the human production stream continues to be "human grade". If
you take a steak out of the grocery store and then return it, it is no
longer legally fit for human consumption. That's the level of
restriction that is placed on the human food chain in the US. Once
that meat meal leaves the human food production stream it is no longer
"human edible". Once meat leaves the human food supplpy chain and
crosses the dock into a pet food production plant it is no longer
"human grade".


>
> May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
> wording?

In point of fact the law has been slow to catch up to busy marketing
geniuses misleading consumers. For years we had pet food companies who
claimed they were "organic". Then the law stepped in and defined
organic, and guess what suddenly all those pet food companies dropped
claims of being "organic". The next marketing wizard term was
"natural", then the law stepped in again and defined the term
"natural" and guess what, 99% of the companies that used to claim to
be "natural" had to drop that claim from the bag. The marketing
geniuses simply move on to the next term to fool consumers with. Right
now that term is "human grade". The FDA, USDA and AAFCO are
considering regulations to define this term. What do you expect will
happen when it is becomes legally defined? Just watch as that claim
disappears into the sunset as well. Only to be replaced with the next
undefined term to fool consumers with. It's marketing game of staying
one step ahead of the regulators. What term can they use legally and
convey the same message? If all those companies truly were "organic"
or "natural" why aren't they continuing to use the same claims?
Because they never were in the first place. Does anyone think for a
second these same companies suddenly stopped making foods that were
"organic" and "natural"? Not a chance.

You have a choice here. You can graduate from the 3rd grade elementary
level of assesing food by looking at ingredients to the college level
of looking at the nutrients they provide, or continue to be a victim
of slick marketing geniuses with the next new undefined descriptive
word.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in messate
> >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> research
> >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her book
> is
> >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>

I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.

> >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>

Where on earth are you getting this information. The rendering and
selling of euthanized pets for pet food is NOT illegal in the U.S. or
Canada. The FDA/CVM has admitted that they are aware of this practice
and although they don't condone it they will take no steps to end such
practices.
>
>
> What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The FDA
> enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could pinpoint a
> violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like PETA,
> etc.
Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
not only with the pet food issue but also the research the pet food
companies conduct on dogs and cats. It is not just Iams that are
involved in these practices. According to a press release by API,
dated August 6, 2001, "According to API, other large pet food
manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."

>
> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why didn't
> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell books
> but it doesn't help much of anything else.

All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
from veterinary journals.

>
> Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in the
> US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's product).
> <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and be
> scared than separate truth from fiction.

These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
brands?

Ann Martin

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in messate
> >> I've seen the book and don't fall for her scare tactics. Most of the
> research
> >> that she did was in the 60s and 70s. Most of what she alleges in her book
> is
> >> illegal (at least here in the US) nowadays.>>

I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.

> >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>

Where on earth are you getting this information. The rendering and
selling of euthanized pets for pet food is NOT illegal in the U.S. or
Canada. The FDA/CVM has admitted that they are aware of this practice
and although they don't condone it they will take no steps to end such
practices.
>
>
> What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The FDA
> enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could pinpoint a
> violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like PETA,
> etc.
Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
not only with the pet food issue but also the research the pet food
companies conduct on dogs and cats. It is not just Iams that are
involved in these practices. According to a press release by API,
dated August 6, 2001, "According to API, other large pet food
manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."

>
> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why didn't
> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell books
> but it doesn't help much of anything else.

All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
from veterinary journals.

>
> Then feel free to let yourself be scared. These things DON'T happen in the
> US---especially if you're buying a better product (such as a Hill's product).
> <SIGH> But I understand some people would rather wring their hands and be
> scared than separate truth from fiction.

These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
brands?

Ann Martin

[[email protected]]

(Ann Martin) wrote:

>and what
>makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>brands?

Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?

-mhd

[[email protected]]

(Ann Martin) wrote:

>and what
>makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>brands?

Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?

-mhd

[Cheryl]

In ,
GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:

> Cheryl, you're parsing words.

Not really. They're all together the way that you worded it. There is
still a difference in what she is saying and what you are saying she
is saying.

>
> Gimme a
> break.

Ok. :)

[Cheryl]

In ,
GAUBSTER2 > composed with style:

> Cheryl, you're parsing words.

Not really. They're all together the way that you worded it. There is
still a difference in what she is saying and what you are saying she
is saying.

>
> Gimme a
> break.

Ok. :)

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote
>
>
> With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently,
> false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels"
> of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level
> discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per
> BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose".

I don't believe I stated that any particular dog food tested was
toxic. The levels, based on the findings of the FDA/CVM:
(1) Dogs that received 150 and 500 micograms pentobarbital once daily
for eight weeks had statistically higher liver weights (relative to
their bodyweights) than the animals in the control group. Increased
liver weights are associated with the increased production by the
liver cytochrome P450 enzymes.

(2) Any analysis showed that the activity of at least three liver
enzymes was statistically greater than that of the controls at doses
of approximately 200 micrograms pentobarbital per day or greater."

Under "Adverse health effects unlikely." They go on to state "For the
purposes of CVM's assessment the scientists assumed that at most, dogs
would be exposed to no more than 4 micrograms/kilogram body weight/day
based on the highest level of pentobarbital found in the survey dog
foods." Further, However, to get the exposure level of 50 micrograms
of pentobarbital per day, which is the highest level at which no
biological response was seen, a dog would have to consume between 5 to
10 micrograms of pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight. But the
most any dog would consume, based in the survey resutls, was 4
micrograms pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight per day."

What's wrong with this picture. First, this was an eight week trial
and any scientist worth their salt knows that adequate data cannot be
obtained in an eight week time span. Our pets are ingesting this
stuff over a life time.
Second, The admit that the amount of pento in the foods they tested
causes elevated enzymes. They state that at most, dogs would get 4
mcg.kg body wt. Well if you have an 80 lb. dog, that's roughly 40 kg.
40 kg. times 40 mcg is 160 mcg. We don't know how much is actually in
any of the foods we feed our pets, could be zero, could be double the
amount they found.

Were you also aware that the FDA has stated that if levels of any kind
of pento were found in human food it would be pulled from the shelves
immediately. They plan to take no action as far as pento in pet food.
They also neglected, or if they did, chose to keep it hidden, any
testing on commerical cat food.
>
> The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out
> possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb,
> beef, etc cannot contain dead dogs and cats. While you may find some
> lower priced foods with the generic "meat meal" ingredient, they are
> rare to non-existant in the premium pet food business. Even those pet
> foods which used the generic term "meat meal" cannot in any way to be
> said to definitively contain dead dogs and cats. Regardless of the DNA
> findings in the report, pet foods that label thier ingredients as a
> specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and
> cats.

I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
"premium foods" list this on their labels.

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote
>
>
> With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently,
> false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels"
> of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level
> discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per
> BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose".

I don't believe I stated that any particular dog food tested was
toxic. The levels, based on the findings of the FDA/CVM:
(1) Dogs that received 150 and 500 micograms pentobarbital once daily
for eight weeks had statistically higher liver weights (relative to
their bodyweights) than the animals in the control group. Increased
liver weights are associated with the increased production by the
liver cytochrome P450 enzymes.

(2) Any analysis showed that the activity of at least three liver
enzymes was statistically greater than that of the controls at doses
of approximately 200 micrograms pentobarbital per day or greater."

Under "Adverse health effects unlikely." They go on to state "For the
purposes of CVM's assessment the scientists assumed that at most, dogs
would be exposed to no more than 4 micrograms/kilogram body weight/day
based on the highest level of pentobarbital found in the survey dog
foods." Further, However, to get the exposure level of 50 micrograms
of pentobarbital per day, which is the highest level at which no
biological response was seen, a dog would have to consume between 5 to
10 micrograms of pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight. But the
most any dog would consume, based in the survey resutls, was 4
micrograms pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight per day."

What's wrong with this picture. First, this was an eight week trial
and any scientist worth their salt knows that adequate data cannot be
obtained in an eight week time span. Our pets are ingesting this
stuff over a life time.
Second, The admit that the amount of pento in the foods they tested
causes elevated enzymes. They state that at most, dogs would get 4
mcg.kg body wt. Well if you have an 80 lb. dog, that's roughly 40 kg.
40 kg. times 40 mcg is 160 mcg. We don't know how much is actually in
any of the foods we feed our pets, could be zero, could be double the
amount they found.

Were you also aware that the FDA has stated that if levels of any kind
of pento were found in human food it would be pulled from the shelves
immediately. They plan to take no action as far as pento in pet food.
They also neglected, or if they did, chose to keep it hidden, any
testing on commerical cat food.
>
> The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out
> possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb,
> beef, etc cannot contain dead dogs and cats. While you may find some
> lower priced foods with the generic "meat meal" ingredient, they are
> rare to non-existant in the premium pet food business. Even those pet
> foods which used the generic term "meat meal" cannot in any way to be
> said to definitively contain dead dogs and cats. Regardless of the DNA
> findings in the report, pet foods that label thier ingredients as a
> specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and
> cats.

I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
"premium foods" list this on their labels.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: (Ann Martin)

>I've just been reading some of these messages and I note that Steve
>Crane
>seems to be an authority on the pet food industry.
>

Seeing as how he actually works in the industry he seems to me to be more of an
authority than you are.

> My writings, as Crane seems to feel, are not
>scare tactics, they're facts.

I see your writings as scare tactics designed to make money for yourself.
Instead of being helpful by pointing out companies that do this sort of thing
and then warning people to stay away, you paint w/ a broad brush and then
profit off of the fear you create.

>In the pet food industry, the ingredients used are *NOT*
>regulated.

Are you suggesting that this is the case in the US? Pet food ingredients, as
all parts of the meat packing industry, falls under USDA and FDA regulation and
inspection. Pet food ingredients are inspected and subject to federal rules.
The USDA, FDA, and FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Services) are arms of the US
Government and govern the use of all pet food ingredients. FSIS inspects all
meat meals used in both human consumption and animal feeds.

> Do the pet food companies test the raw materials to
>ascertain the sources of proteins or do they take the word of the
>suppliers?

Yes, some responsible companies do.

[GAUBSTER2]

>From: (Ann Martin)

>I've just been reading some of these messages and I note that Steve
>Crane
>seems to be an authority on the pet food industry.
>

Seeing as how he actually works in the industry he seems to me to be more of an
authority than you are.

> My writings, as Crane seems to feel, are not
>scare tactics, they're facts.

I see your writings as scare tactics designed to make money for yourself.
Instead of being helpful by pointing out companies that do this sort of thing
and then warning people to stay away, you paint w/ a broad brush and then
profit off of the fear you create.

>In the pet food industry, the ingredients used are *NOT*
>regulated.

Are you suggesting that this is the case in the US? Pet food ingredients, as
all parts of the meat packing industry, falls under USDA and FDA regulation and
inspection. Pet food ingredients are inspected and subject to federal rules.
The USDA, FDA, and FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Services) are arms of the US
Government and govern the use of all pet food ingredients. FSIS inspects all
meat meals used in both human consumption and animal feeds.

> Do the pet food companies test the raw materials to
>ascertain the sources of proteins or do they take the word of the
>suppliers?

Yes, some responsible companies do.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> If you would actually go out into the
>> real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
>> door and pick up a bag of OMH and look
>> at the ingredient's list you would see
>> exactly what I'm talking about.
>
>*You* are making the claim. YOU explain what you're talking about. As
>usual you are expecting others to back up your claims for you.

I already have. I can't exactly hold up the brochure and the bag to the
computer screen and have you look at it, now can I? You're just being obtuse.

>>The way you go on
>> about reading comprehension, you'd think
>> you would do a little of it yourself: In
>> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
>> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
>> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
>> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
>> was done prior (obviously) to that time
>> in order for it to be in her book.
>
>And still you have not provided any evidence that this is true.

Good grief. Obviously you like being argumentative for the sake of it. I'm
telling you what I saw (you know--real life again). Why don't you "prove" to
me that your name is really Megan. I'll bet that you can't. That's the
rationale you're using. At this point, you don't seem to be interested in
doing anything but arguing.

>I have already told you I haven't enough evidence to form an opinion one
>way or another. At this point I believe it's "possible." I am going to
>buy Ms. Martin's book later today and see what she says and look at her
>cites and documentation, which she seems more than happy to provide,
>unlike yourself and apparently the U.S. government.

Of course she is happy to provide them--if you pay her for it.

>>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>>> you can look it up on the internet
>>> though.
>
>So, again, you can't provide a source and expect someone else to look it
>up. Typical.
>

LOL! You obviously don't get the irony here.

>> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
>> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
>> for in the last Presidential Election?
>
>Ah, the last resort of someone on the losing end of an argument - when
>you can't provide facts attack someone's politics.
>

I'm just trying to get some insight to you, that's all. I have a theory here,
but I'm not likely to get an answer from you. That's okay, though. I can't
exactly attack you if I don't know anything about you. That's not my intent
anyway.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> If you would actually go out into the
>> real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
>> door and pick up a bag of OMH and look
>> at the ingredient's list you would see
>> exactly what I'm talking about.
>
>*You* are making the claim. YOU explain what you're talking about. As
>usual you are expecting others to back up your claims for you.

I already have. I can't exactly hold up the brochure and the bag to the
computer screen and have you look at it, now can I? You're just being obtuse.

>>The way you go on
>> about reading comprehension, you'd think
>> you would do a little of it yourself: In
>> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
>> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
>> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
>> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
>> was done prior (obviously) to that time
>> in order for it to be in her book.
>
>And still you have not provided any evidence that this is true.

Good grief. Obviously you like being argumentative for the sake of it. I'm
telling you what I saw (you know--real life again). Why don't you "prove" to
me that your name is really Megan. I'll bet that you can't. That's the
rationale you're using. At this point, you don't seem to be interested in
doing anything but arguing.

>I have already told you I haven't enough evidence to form an opinion one
>way or another. At this point I believe it's "possible." I am going to
>buy Ms. Martin's book later today and see what she says and look at her
>cites and documentation, which she seems more than happy to provide,
>unlike yourself and apparently the U.S. government.

Of course she is happy to provide them--if you pay her for it.

>>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>>> you can look it up on the internet
>>> though.
>
>So, again, you can't provide a source and expect someone else to look it
>up. Typical.
>

LOL! You obviously don't get the irony here.

>> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
>> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
>> for in the last Presidential Election?
>
>Ah, the last resort of someone on the losing end of an argument - when
>you can't provide facts attack someone's politics.
>

I'm just trying to get some insight to you, that's all. I have a theory here,
but I'm not likely to get an answer from you. That's okay, though. I can't
exactly attack you if I don't know anything about you. That's not my intent
anyway.

[GAUBSTER2]

>I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
>These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
>written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.
>

I could have sworn that I saw your book in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.
For the record, I stated that the research was done in the 60s and 70s.

>Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute

2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.

>According to API, other large pet food
>manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
>others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
>significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
>and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
>
API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

>> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
>didn't
>> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
>books
>> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
>
>All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
>name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
>from veterinary journals.
>

I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
to know more.

>These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
>makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>brands?

Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare you
to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.

[GAUBSTER2]

>I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
>These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
>written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.
>

I could have sworn that I saw your book in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.
For the record, I stated that the research was done in the 60s and 70s.

>Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute

2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.

>According to API, other large pet food
>manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
>others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
>significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
>and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
>
API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

>> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
>didn't
>> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
>books
>> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
>
>All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
>name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
>from veterinary journals.
>

I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
to know more.

>These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
>makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>brands?

Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare you
to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

> Very few premiun pet food contain the
> generic term "meat meal"

Who specified "premium?" I should add that Science Diet use "meat
by-products" their foods, many of which are *not* listed below.

> Hundreds of foods were tested, including
> ones which contained generic meat meals
> and those that contained chicken, beef
> etc.

And that is exactly my point. The purpose of testing was to look for
evidence of cats and dogs in meat meals. So why test foods with chicken,
beef or other specifically named meals if you're looking for cats and
dogs? Saying you tested "hundreds" of foods when it is expected that a
good percentage of them contain a specified meal and wouldn't
potentially contain cats or dogs serves no purpose other than to skew
the results.

<snip>

>> If the foods tested contained specific
>> types of animal meals - poultry or beef
>> for example - then wouldn't testing for
>> dog/cat DNA be moot other than to
>> confirm that the meals were as
>> described? It would be easy to say Brand
>> X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if
>> the meat ingredient is chicken meal of
>> course you would not expect to find it.

> Exactly my point - It would be illegal
> for a food to be adulterated with an
> ingredient that is not the ingredient
> claimed. You cannot subsitute dead dogs
> and cats for chicken, beef, poprk etc.

Nobody has disputed that, or even brought it up except for you. That has
nothing to do with what I am asking, nor did I ever claim it happens.

> Unless the food contains the generic
> term "meat meal" it cannot possibly
> contain dead dogs and cats.

So why test it? Why not concentrate on tesing only those foods that
contain "meat" meals or by-products?

>> Can you provide a list of the foods that
>> were tested?

> I will try to copy paste the list below.
<sorry had to snip some for space>

> Krunchy Kibble
> Krunchy Kibble
> Bite Size Dog Food
> Bite Size Meal
> Bite Size Meal
> Rice Premium Formula with Chicken
> Protein and Rice High Performance with
> Chicken Protein and Rice High
> Performance with Chicken Protein and
> Rice Krunchy Bites & Bones
> Lean Formula
> Lean Formula
> Meaty Chunks and Gravy
> Meaty Chunks and Gravy
> Dinner Rounds Soft Dry Dog Food
> Mealtime
> Mealtime
> Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
> Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Beef and Rice Adult
> Beef and Rice Adult
> Beef and Rice Puppy
> Beef and Rice Puppy
> Mainstay
> Mainstay
> Dog Chow
> Little Bites
> Little Bites
> High Pro
> High Pro
> Grrravy
> Grrravy
> High Protein Dog Meal
> High Protein Dog Meal
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Chunk Style
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Premium Quality
> Chunk Premium Quality

Most of these names by themselves mean absolutely nothing and give no
clue as to who makes them or what the ingredients are and are therefore
meaningless. Please provide more info and the ingredients.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

> Very few premiun pet food contain the
> generic term "meat meal"

Who specified "premium?" I should add that Science Diet use "meat
by-products" their foods, many of which are *not* listed below.

> Hundreds of foods were tested, including
> ones which contained generic meat meals
> and those that contained chicken, beef
> etc.

And that is exactly my point. The purpose of testing was to look for
evidence of cats and dogs in meat meals. So why test foods with chicken,
beef or other specifically named meals if you're looking for cats and
dogs? Saying you tested "hundreds" of foods when it is expected that a
good percentage of them contain a specified meal and wouldn't
potentially contain cats or dogs serves no purpose other than to skew
the results.

<snip>

>> If the foods tested contained specific
>> types of animal meals - poultry or beef
>> for example - then wouldn't testing for
>> dog/cat DNA be moot other than to
>> confirm that the meals were as
>> described? It would be easy to say Brand
>> X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if
>> the meat ingredient is chicken meal of
>> course you would not expect to find it.

> Exactly my point - It would be illegal
> for a food to be adulterated with an
> ingredient that is not the ingredient
> claimed. You cannot subsitute dead dogs
> and cats for chicken, beef, poprk etc.

Nobody has disputed that, or even brought it up except for you. That has
nothing to do with what I am asking, nor did I ever claim it happens.

> Unless the food contains the generic
> term "meat meal" it cannot possibly
> contain dead dogs and cats.

So why test it? Why not concentrate on tesing only those foods that
contain "meat" meals or by-products?

>> Can you provide a list of the foods that
>> were tested?

> I will try to copy paste the list below.
<sorry had to snip some for space>

> Krunchy Kibble
> Krunchy Kibble
> Bite Size Dog Food
> Bite Size Meal
> Bite Size Meal
> Rice Premium Formula with Chicken
> Protein and Rice High Performance with
> Chicken Protein and Rice High
> Performance with Chicken Protein and
> Rice Krunchy Bites & Bones
> Lean Formula
> Lean Formula
> Meaty Chunks and Gravy
> Meaty Chunks and Gravy
> Dinner Rounds Soft Dry Dog Food
> Mealtime
> Mealtime
> Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
> Meaty Chunks with Rice and Vegetables
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Beef and Rice Adult
> Beef and Rice Adult
> Beef and Rice Puppy
> Beef and Rice Puppy
> Mainstay
> Mainstay
> Dog Chow
> Little Bites
> Little Bites
> High Pro
> High Pro
> Grrravy
> Grrravy
> High Protein Dog Meal
> High Protein Dog Meal
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Chunk Style
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Gravy Style Dog Food
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Style
> Chunk Premium Quality
> Chunk Premium Quality

Most of these names by themselves mean absolutely nothing and give no
clue as to who makes them or what the ingredients are and are therefore
meaningless. Please provide more info and the ingredients.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>Seeing as how he actually works in the
>industry he seems to me to be more of an
>authority than you are.

Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
what Ann has been doing since 1990.


>>=A0=A0=A0=A0My writings, as Crane seems to feel,
>>are not scare tactics, they're facts.

>I see your writings as scare tactics
>designed to make money for yourself.
>Instead of being helpful by pointing out
>companies that do this sort of thing and
>then warning people to stay away, you
>paint w/ a broad brush and then profit off
>of the fear you create.

You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
expect anyone to take you seriously.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>Seeing as how he actually works in the
>industry he seems to me to be more of an
>authority than you are.

Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
what Ann has been doing since 1990.


>>=A0=A0=A0=A0My writings, as Crane seems to feel,
>>are not scare tactics, they're facts.

>I see your writings as scare tactics
>designed to make money for yourself.
>Instead of being helpful by pointing out
>companies that do this sort of thing and
>then warning people to stay away, you
>paint w/ a broad brush and then profit off
>of the fear you create.

You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
expect anyone to take you seriously.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 Wrote:

>> *You* are making the claim. YOU explain
>> what you're talking about. As usual you
>> are expecting others to back up your
>> claims for you.

> I already have.

You've done nothing of the kind. A useless link that does not work won't
cut it.

>I can't exactly hold up
> the brochure and the bag to the computer
> screen and have you look at it, now can
> I? You're just being obtuse.

You're doing everything in your power to avoid having to back up your
baseless claims.

> The way you go on
> about reading comprehension, you'd think
> you would do a little of it yourself: In
> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
> was done prior (obviously) to that time
> in order for it to be in her book.

>> And still you have not provided any
>> evidence that this is true.

> Good grief. Obviously you like being
> argumentative for the sake of it.

No, *you* are being argumentative for the sake of it because you're
insisting something is true when it isn't and has been proven so.

>I'm
> telling you what I saw (you know--real
> life again). Why don't you "prove" to me
> that your name is really Megan. I'll bet
> that you can't. That's the rationale
> you're using. At this point, you don't
> seem to be interested in doing anything
> but arguing.

No, I'm interested in seeing you back up what you say with something
factual.

>> I have already told you I haven't enough
>> evidence to form an opinion one way or
>> another. At this point I believe it's
>> "possible." I am going to buy Ms.
>> Martin's book later today and see what
>> she says and look at her cites and
>> documentation, which she seems more than
>> happy to provide, unlike yourself and
>> apparently the U.S. government.

> Of course she is happy to provide
> them--if you pay her for it.

And why shouldn't she get paid for a book that she put so much hard work
and research into? If you think she started the research for the intent
of making money, you obviously don't have a clue.

>>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>>> you can look it up on the internet
>>> though.

>> So, again, you can't provide a source
>> and expect someone else to look it up.
>> Typical.

> LOL! You obviously don't get the irony
> here.

You obviously don't understand sarcasm when it stares you in the face.

>>> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
>>> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
>>> for in the last Presidential Election?

>> Ah, the last resort of someone on the
>> losing end of an argument - when you
>> can't provide facts attack someone's
>> politics.

> I'm just trying to get some insight to
> you, that's all. I have a theory here,
> but I'm not likely to get an answer from
> you. That's okay, though. I can't
> exactly attack you if I don't know
> anything about you. That's not my intent
> anyway.

I believe this about as much as anything else you have posted.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 Wrote:

>> *You* are making the claim. YOU explain
>> what you're talking about. As usual you
>> are expecting others to back up your
>> claims for you.

> I already have.

You've done nothing of the kind. A useless link that does not work won't
cut it.

>I can't exactly hold up
> the brochure and the bag to the computer
> screen and have you look at it, now can
> I? You're just being obtuse.

You're doing everything in your power to avoid having to back up your
baseless claims.

> The way you go on
> about reading comprehension, you'd think
> you would do a little of it yourself: In
> the late 80s I saw a book from Ann
> Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I
> didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody would.
> It was copyrighted 1979. Her research
> was done prior (obviously) to that time
> in order for it to be in her book.

>> And still you have not provided any
>> evidence that this is true.

> Good grief. Obviously you like being
> argumentative for the sake of it.

No, *you* are being argumentative for the sake of it because you're
insisting something is true when it isn't and has been proven so.

>I'm
> telling you what I saw (you know--real
> life again). Why don't you "prove" to me
> that your name is really Megan. I'll bet
> that you can't. That's the rationale
> you're using. At this point, you don't
> seem to be interested in doing anything
> but arguing.

No, I'm interested in seeing you back up what you say with something
factual.

>> I have already told you I haven't enough
>> evidence to form an opinion one way or
>> another. At this point I believe it's
>> "possible." I am going to buy Ms.
>> Martin's book later today and see what
>> she says and look at her cites and
>> documentation, which she seems more than
>> happy to provide, unlike yourself and
>> apparently the U.S. government.

> Of course she is happy to provide
> them--if you pay her for it.

And why shouldn't she get paid for a book that she put so much hard work
and research into? If you think she started the research for the intent
of making money, you obviously don't have a clue.

>>> Perhaps you should read "How to Win
>>> Friends, and Influence People", and no,
>>> I don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure
>>> you can look it up on the internet
>>> though.

>> So, again, you can't provide a source
>> and expect someone else to look it up.
>> Typical.

> LOL! You obviously don't get the irony
> here.

You obviously don't understand sarcasm when it stares you in the face.

>>> Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to
>>> test a theory of mine: Who did you vote
>>> for in the last Presidential Election?

>> Ah, the last resort of someone on the
>> losing end of an argument - when you
>> can't provide facts attack someone's
>> politics.

> I'm just trying to get some insight to
> you, that's all. I have a theory here,
> but I'm not likely to get an answer from
> you. That's okay, though. I can't
> exactly attack you if I don't know
> anything about you. That's not my intent
> anyway.

I believe this about as much as anything else you have posted.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>I could have sworn that I saw your book
>in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.

Perhaps??? Um, she just told you that you ARE wrong. It's past the point
of "perhaps."

> For the record, I stated that the research
>was done in the 60s and 70s.

And you're wrong again, but still apparently too weak to admit it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>I could have sworn that I saw your book
>in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.

Perhaps??? Um, she just told you that you ARE wrong. It's past the point
of "perhaps."

> For the record, I stated that the research
>was done in the 60s and 70s.

And you're wrong again, but still apparently too weak to admit it.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> You're assuming that this is in the vast majority of pet foods being consumed
> and it isn't. You are painting w/ a very broad brush and insinuating that
> "everybody is doing it" and in fact hardly anybody is doing it.

Any one using meat meal in their products would be suspect. Do you
know of any company that actually analysis the raw materials for
pentobarbital? Over half of the foods the FDA/CVM tested contained
this drug and that was a small percentage of the brands that are out
there.
>
> > They also neglected, or if they did, chose to keep it hidden, any
> >testing on commerical cat food.
>
> Do you just think it's a big conspiracy? I've noted that this seems to your
> suggestion many times.

Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
meat by-products.
>
> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
>
> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is happening
> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like a
> fear-monger to me.

Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.

Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
non-descript items listed on pet food labels. People should fear the
worst. How many thousands of tons of pet food have been recalled due
to mycotoxin contamination? By the way, these pet foods were recalled
by the companies because so many dogs became ill or died, not by
government agencies. I myself had two dogs become very ill after
eating a well known dog food. I did have it tested and it was shown to
contain 1120 ppm of zinc, a toxic level. Each day I hear from people
that have pets become ill or die and all want to know what government
agency will test the food they have been feeding. My reply "none"
because this industry is unregulated. Try contacting the CVM and and
see what action they will take. If YOU have the pet food tested,
which can cost thousands of dollars, if your vet provides lab tests,
documentation that the illness was caused by the pet food, then they
might consider looking into the problem.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> You're assuming that this is in the vast majority of pet foods being consumed
> and it isn't. You are painting w/ a very broad brush and insinuating that
> "everybody is doing it" and in fact hardly anybody is doing it.

Any one using meat meal in their products would be suspect. Do you
know of any company that actually analysis the raw materials for
pentobarbital? Over half of the foods the FDA/CVM tested contained
this drug and that was a small percentage of the brands that are out
there.
>
> > They also neglected, or if they did, chose to keep it hidden, any
> >testing on commerical cat food.
>
> Do you just think it's a big conspiracy? I've noted that this seems to your
> suggestion many times.

Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
meat by-products.
>
> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
>
> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is happening
> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like a
> fear-monger to me.

Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.

Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
non-descript items listed on pet food labels. People should fear the
worst. How many thousands of tons of pet food have been recalled due
to mycotoxin contamination? By the way, these pet foods were recalled
by the companies because so many dogs became ill or died, not by
government agencies. I myself had two dogs become very ill after
eating a well known dog food. I did have it tested and it was shown to
contain 1120 ppm of zinc, a toxic level. Each day I hear from people
that have pets become ill or die and all want to know what government
agency will test the food they have been feeding. My reply "none"
because this industry is unregulated. Try contacting the CVM and and
see what action they will take. If YOU have the pet food tested,
which can cost thousands of dollars, if your vet provides lab tests,
documentation that the illness was caused by the pet food, then they
might consider looking into the problem.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Ann Martin)
> >Date: 8/21/03 5:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> >ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> >human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> >their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> >only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.
> >
>
> Ann, please name names--offenders, good guys, etc.

Halo, the company that produces Spot's Stew uses USDA kitchens, the
people making this food have actually eaten it for lunch. Wonder if
their are many other pet food companies where their employees would
eat the foods they were making. Pet Guard, a Florida company, also
uses meats and grains that are sold for human consumption.

As for the offenders, question the companies as to their sources of
ingredients.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Ann Martin)
> >Date: 8/21/03 5:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> >ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> >human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> >their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> >only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.
> >
>
> Ann, please name names--offenders, good guys, etc.

Halo, the company that produces Spot's Stew uses USDA kitchens, the
people making this food have actually eaten it for lunch. Wonder if
their are many other pet food companies where their employees would
eat the foods they were making. Pet Guard, a Florida company, also
uses meats and grains that are sold for human consumption.

As for the offenders, question the companies as to their sources of
ingredients.

[Ann Martin]

wrote in message >...
> (Ann Martin) wrote:
>
> >and what
> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
> >brands?
>
> Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?
>
> -mhd

Read labels.

[Ann Martin]

wrote in message >...
> (Ann Martin) wrote:
>
> >and what
> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
> >brands?
>
> Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?
>
> -mhd

Read labels.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
> >These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
> >written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.
> >
>
> I could have sworn that I saw your book in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.
> For the record, I stated that the research was done in the 60s and 70s.
>
You are wrong and the research for all my books was not from the 60's
and 70's. All information in the books was up to date and I have the
dated documentation.


> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>
> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.

Strictly your opinion but at least PETA is taking some kind of action
against companies like Iams in filing a complaint with the FTC for
false and misleading claims.
>
> >According to API, other large pet food
> >manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
> >others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
> >significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
> >and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
> >
> API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

Then perhaps Hill's could take legal action and prove that they don't
undertake such unethical practices.
>
> >> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> >> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> >> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
> >
> >All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
> >name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
> >from veterinary journals.
> >
>
> I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
> to know more.

Try checking the vet journals, no one is asking you or anyone else to
buy my books. I did the work so I am sure you can afford the time to
do such research.
>
> >These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
> >brands?
>
> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare you
> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.

Hill's is mentioned in my book as one of the companies involved in
such practices. I'm waiting for the lawsuit.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >I don't know who you are but I must say you are very misinformed.
> >These are NOT "scare tactics" these are facts and my books were
> >written in 1997, 2001, and 2003, not the 60's and 70's as you state.
> >
>
> I could have sworn that I saw your book in the late 80s. perhaps I'm wrong.
> For the record, I stated that the research was done in the 60s and 70s.
>
You are wrong and the research for all my books was not from the 60's
and 70's. All information in the books was up to date and I have the
dated documentation.


> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>
> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.

Strictly your opinion but at least PETA is taking some kind of action
against companies like Iams in filing a complaint with the FTC for
false and misleading claims.
>
> >According to API, other large pet food
> >manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
> >others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
> >significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
> >and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
> >
> API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

Then perhaps Hill's could take legal action and prove that they don't
undertake such unethical practices.
>
> >> Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> >> she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> >> but it doesn't help much of anything else.
> >
> >All this information is in my recent book published this year and I do
> >name names, places and times. In fact, a lot of the information is
> >from veterinary journals.
> >
>
> I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
> to know more.

Try checking the vet journals, no one is asking you or anyone else to
buy my books. I did the work so I am sure you can afford the time to
do such research.
>
> >These things happen more in the U.S. then any other country and what
> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
> >brands?
>
> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare you
> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.

Hill's is mentioned in my book as one of the companies involved in
such practices. I'm waiting for the lawsuit.

[Ann Martin]

wrote in message >...
> Gaubster2 wrote:
>
>
> > You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
> > LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
> > and it was originally published in the
> > late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)

I did not think that you had stated that it was the research that was
undertaken back in 1978 or 79. I believe that it is YOU that should
be doing your research and not just on the dates my book was published
but on everything for which you claim to have knowledge. Your
statements, over and over again, purporting that the law states dogs
and cats cannot be used in pet food in the U.S., is another one of
your unfounded claims. Your statements that pet foods are regulated
by various govenment agencies, another rambling which you cannot
substantiate. To find out who is "full of crap," look in the mirror.

Ann Martin
>

[Ann Martin]

wrote in message >...
> Gaubster2 wrote:
>
>
> > You're full of crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
> > LOOK IT UP. I've seen the book before
> > and it was originally published in the
> > late '70s (I want to say 1978 or '79)

I did not think that you had stated that it was the research that was
undertaken back in 1978 or 79. I believe that it is YOU that should
be doing your research and not just on the dates my book was published
but on everything for which you claim to have knowledge. Your
statements, over and over again, purporting that the law states dogs
and cats cannot be used in pet food in the U.S., is another one of
your unfounded claims. Your statements that pet foods are regulated
by various govenment agencies, another rambling which you cannot
substantiate. To find out who is "full of crap," look in the mirror.

Ann Martin
>

[Ann Martin]

> Steve, wrote
>
> > >Reality is that the vastmajority of pet
> >foods use a described meat meal -
> >chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
> >duck etc. Very few use the generic term
> >"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
> >FDA and USDA testing proved that there
> >was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
> >hundreds of foods tested.

First, I think if you do a search you will find a number of foods that
still use meat meal and if I remember correctly it was not that long
ago that Hill's also used this ingredient. I'm sure I can find a
Hill's label that will back up this fact.

Second, the USDA had nothing to do with the pentobarbital nor the DNA
study. It was the FDA/CVM. Third, "in the hundreds of foods tested,"
the "hundreds" amounted to a total of 147, 87 in the first survey and
60 in the second survey.
The first survey "only detected the presence of pentobarbital, but did
not indicate how much was present."

>
> >but in reality there are no dead dogs and
> >cats in 99.999999% of pet food.

And how can you be 100% sure? Have you, have Hill's tested the raw
materials they use? Wonder where these millions of rendered pets are
going? Not for livestock feed, that's illegal. Fertilizer, perhaps
some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
rendering plants that sell to pet food companies. Before you spout
your proverbial, "what facts do you have?" Try Valley Protein who
rendered pets and sold the material to companies such as Purina. How
'bout Baker Commodities that renders pets from shelters on the West
Coast and sells the raw material to American Nutrition that makes over
175 private labels. These are just two but I know from being in
contact with a VP from a large rendering conglomerate in the U.S.,
these are "just the tip of the iceburg.
>
> >In most
> >cases I suggest dealing with reality rather
> >than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.

May I suggest that you start dealing with reality and stop denying the
facts or provide proof that none of this is happening. I've done my
homework, perhaps you should for a change.

> >It's also legal to chase skunks at
> >midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
> >any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
> >time on something that really affects pets,
> >not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

Perhaps you have taken up this hobby and we are now seeing the
results.

[Ann Martin]

> Steve, wrote
>
> > >Reality is that the vastmajority of pet
> >foods use a described meat meal -
> >chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
> >duck etc. Very few use the generic term
> >"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
> >FDA and USDA testing proved that there
> >was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
> >hundreds of foods tested.

First, I think if you do a search you will find a number of foods that
still use meat meal and if I remember correctly it was not that long
ago that Hill's also used this ingredient. I'm sure I can find a
Hill's label that will back up this fact.

Second, the USDA had nothing to do with the pentobarbital nor the DNA
study. It was the FDA/CVM. Third, "in the hundreds of foods tested,"
the "hundreds" amounted to a total of 147, 87 in the first survey and
60 in the second survey.
The first survey "only detected the presence of pentobarbital, but did
not indicate how much was present."

>
> >but in reality there are no dead dogs and
> >cats in 99.999999% of pet food.

And how can you be 100% sure? Have you, have Hill's tested the raw
materials they use? Wonder where these millions of rendered pets are
going? Not for livestock feed, that's illegal. Fertilizer, perhaps
some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
rendering plants that sell to pet food companies. Before you spout
your proverbial, "what facts do you have?" Try Valley Protein who
rendered pets and sold the material to companies such as Purina. How
'bout Baker Commodities that renders pets from shelters on the West
Coast and sells the raw material to American Nutrition that makes over
175 private labels. These are just two but I know from being in
contact with a VP from a large rendering conglomerate in the U.S.,
these are "just the tip of the iceburg.
>
> >In most
> >cases I suggest dealing with reality rather
> >than lunatic fringe conspiracy madness.

May I suggest that you start dealing with reality and stop denying the
facts or provide proof that none of this is happening. I've done my
homework, perhaps you should for a change.

> >It's also legal to chase skunks at
> >midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
> >any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
> >time on something that really affects pets,
> >not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.

Perhaps you have taken up this hobby and we are now seeing the
results.

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote in message >...
> (Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> > I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> > ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> > human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> > their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> > only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.
>
> Please provide the name of single company producing such foods.

Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
that produce human food products.
>
> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
> calculation.

And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
any pet food site and get that info.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote in message >...
> (Ann Martin) wrote in message >...
> > I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
> > ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
> > human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
> > their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
> > only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.
>
> Please provide the name of single company producing such foods.

Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
that produce human food products.
>
> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
> calculation.

And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
any pet food site and get that info.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

>
> "GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
> ...

> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> > >>
> > >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>

Again, this is NOT an illegal practice throughout North America

> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
> FDA
> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> > etc.

And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.

> >
> > Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> > whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
> So, it
> > is being enforced.

Diseased parts ARE used. Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
condemned material is going ..... pet food. As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.
> >
> > >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
> Science
> Diet
> > >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned,
> call
> > >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>

Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
tell us?
> > >
> > >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> > >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> > >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> > >exact experiments which were conducted
> >
> > Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> > she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> > but it doesn't help much of anything else.

In the latest edition of my book this was info I obtained last year,
not something from the dark ages. You can find the names of both the
scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
vet journal.

Ann Martin
> >

[Ann Martin]

>
> "GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
> ...

> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
> > >>
> > >> Not true. It is illegal here in the US.>>

Again, this is NOT an illegal practice throughout North America

> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
> FDA
> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> > etc.

And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.

> >
> > Diseased parts aren't used. That's just more spin that sells books (and
> > whatever else). As for mad cow, that's being watched VERRRRY closely.
> So, it
> > is being enforced.

Diseased parts ARE used. Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
condemned material is going ..... pet food. As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.
> >
> > >> IAMS/Eukanuba has been in the press for allegations of this sort.
> Science
> Diet
> > >> doesn't do the types of things that she alleges. If you are concerned,
> call
> > >> the companies in questions and she what they have to say.>>

Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
tell us?
> > >
> > >Apparently many of these test are kep under wraps. She got her reports
> > >by interviewing scientists at the schools. I suppose it could be
> > >untrue, but it is still disturbing, esp. reading the listings of the
> > >exact experiments which were conducted
> >
> > Again, how many years ago was that and if it was really a concern, why
> didn't
> > she do her part and name names and places and times? Hearsay may sell
> books
> > but it doesn't help much of anything else.

In the latest edition of my book this was info I obtained last year,
not something from the dark ages. You can find the names of both the
scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
vet journal.

Ann Martin
> >

[kate]

>
> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>
> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.>>

Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
know this?

<<
>
> I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
> to know more.>>

This is logic I simply cant understand. If you are accusing a little
author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
anything to cut costs. Your posts are strangely antogonistic-it seems
more about that then anything else.

<<>
> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I wo>>

Please provide links, or descriptions of your proof/research

<<uld dare you
> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.>>

This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
company!! Just because they would sue doesnt mean it wouldn't be true
information, in fact they would more likely sue if the information was
true ala MCdonalds, etc

[kate]

>
> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>
> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.>>

Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
know this?

<<
>
> I suppose you are only in it for the $$ and we have to buy your book if we want
> to know more.>>

This is logic I simply cant understand. If you are accusing a little
author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
anything to cut costs. Your posts are strangely antogonistic-it seems
more about that then anything else.

<<>
> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that they
> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I wo>>

Please provide links, or descriptions of your proof/research

<<uld dare you
> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You would be
> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.>>

This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
company!! Just because they would sue doesnt mean it wouldn't be true
information, in fact they would more likely sue if the information was
true ala MCdonalds, etc

[GAUBSTER2]

>Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
>"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
>what Ann has been doing since 1990.
>

I think actual experience (there's that real life thing again) makes one more
of an expert in a field than someone who does research about a particular
field. Especially when the person who "researches" only focuses on one aspect
of the field and then paints that entire field with such a broad brush.

>You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
>expect anyone to take you seriously.
>

Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
>"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
>what Ann has been doing since 1990.
>

I think actual experience (there's that real life thing again) makes one more
of an expert in a field than someone who does research about a particular
field. Especially when the person who "researches" only focuses on one aspect
of the field and then paints that entire field with such a broad brush.

>You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
>expect anyone to take you seriously.
>

Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> > Do the pet food companies test the raw materials to
>> >ascertain the sources of proteins or do they take the word of the
>> >suppliers?
>>
>> Yes, some responsible companies do.
>
>Name just one.

Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?

>Has he
>spent nearly 14 years researching/investigating this industry? Is he
>aware of the operations of the rendering industry where some of the
>sources of protein originate?

Why don't you email him and ask him?

> Better yet, is he aware
>that this is an unregulated industry?

This isn't an unregulated industry. Why do you keep making such claims?

> First the USDA and the FSIS deal with
>the human food chain. I have letters from both these agencies stating
>that their mandate relates to human foods to insure that it is
>wholesome and safe.

Do you have letters confirming that they DON'T have anything at all to do w/
inspecting ingredients that go to pet food companies or to the industry?

> Could
>you please cite where this agency inspects the meat used in commercial
>pet foods, meat coming from rendering plants and slaughterhouses?

You'll have to wait for my book... ;)

>As previously mentioned, any company using meat meal in their foods
>should be suspect.

SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those are
meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
again.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> > Do the pet food companies test the raw materials to
>> >ascertain the sources of proteins or do they take the word of the
>> >suppliers?
>>
>> Yes, some responsible companies do.
>
>Name just one.

Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?

>Has he
>spent nearly 14 years researching/investigating this industry? Is he
>aware of the operations of the rendering industry where some of the
>sources of protein originate?

Why don't you email him and ask him?

> Better yet, is he aware
>that this is an unregulated industry?

This isn't an unregulated industry. Why do you keep making such claims?

> First the USDA and the FSIS deal with
>the human food chain. I have letters from both these agencies stating
>that their mandate relates to human foods to insure that it is
>wholesome and safe.

Do you have letters confirming that they DON'T have anything at all to do w/
inspecting ingredients that go to pet food companies or to the industry?

> Could
>you please cite where this agency inspects the meat used in commercial
>pet foods, meat coming from rendering plants and slaughterhouses?

You'll have to wait for my book... ;)

>As previously mentioned, any company using meat meal in their foods
>should be suspect.

SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those are
meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
again.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I can't exactly hold up
>> the brochure and the bag to the computer
>> screen and have you look at it, now can
>> I? You're just being obtuse.
>
>You're doing everything in your power to avoid having to back up your
>baseless claims.
>

Oh brother. You want me to prove something to you that I can't show you. Even
if I was right in front of you, you would probably close your eyes and then
claim that you didn't "see" any proof.

I'm starting to think that you are a troll w/ your circular logic. It's clear
you disagree w/ me, that's okay. The bottom line is that it still hasn't been
proven that what you claim is "possible" ever takes place at all whatsoever.

[GAUBSTER2]

>>I can't exactly hold up
>> the brochure and the bag to the computer
>> screen and have you look at it, now can
>> I? You're just being obtuse.
>
>You're doing everything in your power to avoid having to back up your
>baseless claims.
>

Oh brother. You want me to prove something to you that I can't show you. Even
if I was right in front of you, you would probably close your eyes and then
claim that you didn't "see" any proof.

I'm starting to think that you are a troll w/ your circular logic. It's clear
you disagree w/ me, that's okay. The bottom line is that it still hasn't been
proven that what you claim is "possible" ever takes place at all whatsoever.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Very few premiun pet food contain the
>> generic term "meat meal"
>
>Who specified "premium?" I should add that Science Diet use "meat
>by-products" their foods, many of which are *not* listed below.

Instead of speaking generally, he is trying to narrow down the discussion to
specifics to help lend clarity. Which specific products does Science Diet use
"meat by-products" in?

>And that is exactly my point. The purpose of testing was to look for
>evidence of cats and dogs in meat meals. So why test foods with chicken,
>beef or other specifically named meals if you're looking for cats and
>dogs? Saying you tested "hundreds" of foods when it is expected that a
>good percentage of them contain a specified meal and wouldn't
>potentially contain cats or dogs serves no purpose other than to skew
>the results.

I suppose a wide range of foods were tested since these are probably the
top-selling foods in the US and the theory was that the pentobarbital was so
"prevalent" (only a theory) they should test all kinds of foods.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Very few premiun pet food contain the
>> generic term "meat meal"
>
>Who specified "premium?" I should add that Science Diet use "meat
>by-products" their foods, many of which are *not* listed below.

Instead of speaking generally, he is trying to narrow down the discussion to
specifics to help lend clarity. Which specific products does Science Diet use
"meat by-products" in?

>And that is exactly my point. The purpose of testing was to look for
>evidence of cats and dogs in meat meals. So why test foods with chicken,
>beef or other specifically named meals if you're looking for cats and
>dogs? Saying you tested "hundreds" of foods when it is expected that a
>good percentage of them contain a specified meal and wouldn't
>potentially contain cats or dogs serves no purpose other than to skew
>the results.

I suppose a wide range of foods were tested since these are probably the
top-selling foods in the US and the theory was that the pentobarbital was so
"prevalent" (only a theory) they should test all kinds of foods.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Try reading "ingredient definitions" AAFCO publication "Meat meal is
>the rendered product from MAMMAL tissues, exclusive of blood, hair,
>hoof, horn, hide, trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except
>in such amounts as may occur unaviodably in good processing
>practices." To the best of my knowledge cats and dogs are mammals.

Yeah and so are whales and people. Using your convoluted suggestive logic,
that means that it is possible that there are dead people and dead whales in
pet food. Hey, maybe you could write a book expousing that line of bull.

>If you can find any federal statues
>that show pets are NOT allowed in pet food, let me know.

If you can find any federal statutes that state that it is illegal to eat
grasshoppers on the sun, let me know. In the meantime, I don't think there is
anybody that is eating grasshoppers under the sun. Absurd, isn't it?

[GAUBSTER2]

>Try reading "ingredient definitions" AAFCO publication "Meat meal is
>the rendered product from MAMMAL tissues, exclusive of blood, hair,
>hoof, horn, hide, trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except
>in such amounts as may occur unaviodably in good processing
>practices." To the best of my knowledge cats and dogs are mammals.

Yeah and so are whales and people. Using your convoluted suggestive logic,
that means that it is possible that there are dead people and dead whales in
pet food. Hey, maybe you could write a book expousing that line of bull.

>If you can find any federal statues
>that show pets are NOT allowed in pet food, let me know.

If you can find any federal statutes that state that it is illegal to eat
grasshoppers on the sun, let me know. In the meantime, I don't think there is
anybody that is eating grasshoppers under the sun. Absurd, isn't it?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >It's also legal to chase skunks at
>> >midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
>> >any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
>> >time on something that really affects pets,
>> >not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.
>
>Perhaps you have taken up this hobby and we are now seeing the
>results.
>

You think you're quite clever, don't you? I find you to be quite boorish.

> Wonder where these millions of rendered pets are
>going?

Would you like to provide some kind of source that indicates "millions" of pets
are going into pet foods? Most of those, yes, do become fertilizer.

>Fertilizer, perhaps
>some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
>rendering plants that sell to pet food companies.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >It's also legal to chase skunks at
>> >midnight on a full moon, but I haven't met
>> >any successful skunk hunters. Spend your
>> >time on something that really affects pets,
>> >not silly nonsense from the lunatic fringe.
>
>Perhaps you have taken up this hobby and we are now seeing the
>results.
>

You think you're quite clever, don't you? I find you to be quite boorish.

> Wonder where these millions of rendered pets are
>going?

Would you like to provide some kind of source that indicates "millions" of pets
are going into pet foods? Most of those, yes, do become fertilizer.

>Fertilizer, perhaps
>some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
>rendering plants that sell to pet food companies.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Do you just think it's a big conspiracy? I've noted that this seems to
>your
>> suggestion many times.
>
>Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
>industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
>products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
>on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
>meat by-products.

Then work with your local legislator to get the labels changed. I don't have a
problem w/ that.

>> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
>> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
>> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
>> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
>> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
>> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
>>
>> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
>> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is
>happening
>> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like
>a
>> fear-monger to me.

>Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
>talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.

And since you haven't provided any "proof" here either, you want to try to
discredit me since you disagree w/ me. You are coming across as very arrogant.

>Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
>non-descript items listed on pet food labels.

Since you seem to "know" so much from your so-called "research", why don't you
provide those kinds of details? Perhaps you don't want to stick your neck out
quite "that" far. It pays more ($$) to let people jump to their own
conclusions, doesn't it?

>People should fear the
>worst.

See, you ARE a fear monger. Case closed.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Do you just think it's a big conspiracy? I've noted that this seems to
>your
>> suggestion many times.
>
>Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
>industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
>products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
>on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
>meat by-products.

Then work with your local legislator to get the labels changed. I don't have a
problem w/ that.

>> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
>> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
>> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
>> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
>> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
>> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
>>
>> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
>> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is
>happening
>> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like
>a
>> fear-monger to me.

>Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
>talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.

And since you haven't provided any "proof" here either, you want to try to
discredit me since you disagree w/ me. You are coming across as very arrogant.

>Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
>non-descript items listed on pet food labels.

Since you seem to "know" so much from your so-called "research", why don't you
provide those kinds of details? Perhaps you don't want to stick your neck out
quite "that" far. It pays more ($$) to let people jump to their own
conclusions, doesn't it?

>People should fear the
>worst.

See, you ARE a fear monger. Case closed.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> For the record, I stated that the research
>>was done in the 60s and 70s.
>
>And you're wrong again, but still apparently too weak to admit it.

Megan, I know what I said. Do you have some sort of personal vendetta here?
Let not your heart be troubled.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> For the record, I stated that the research
>>was done in the 60s and 70s.
>
>And you're wrong again, but still apparently too weak to admit it.

Megan, I know what I said. Do you have some sort of personal vendetta here?
Let not your heart be troubled.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>>
>> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
>> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.>>
>
>Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
>would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
>know this?

I've seen/heard interviews on tv and radio w/ PETA reps making just such a
statement. I don't have a link available. Check out their website. I wasn't
sure they would actually make such a claim in public (although it doesn't
surprise me--they are extremely left-wing), but I have seen it on their site.
I never linked to it, because quite frankly I don't really care about them
enough to bother w/ it. I know what I saw and heard. If they've changed their
position on that, then I would applaud them for it.

>If you are accusing a little
>author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
>you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
>anything to cut costs.

I would hardly consider Ann as being a (poor) "little author". I am always
skeptical when people make money off of selling fear. Everything I've heard
about her book (and I have read parts of it) indicate that she is painting
certain small segments of the industry as being more than it is and alleging
that the practices are taking place daily all over the place, all the time.
There just isn't any proof that is happening and certainly not on the scale
that she would have you believe.

>> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that
>they
>> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I wo>>
>
>Please provide links, or descriptions of your proof/research

I've contacted the company directly in writing and by phone, years ago. Again,
I'm not a packrat, I don't have anything on my person to give you.

>This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
>company!!

>This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
>company!! Just because they would sue doesnt mean it wouldn't be true
>information, in fact they would more likely sue if the information was
>true ala MCdonalds, etc
>

I disagree. If somebody was alleging something about me that was untrue, then
I would sue them.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
>>
>> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
>> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.>>
>
>Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
>would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
>know this?

I've seen/heard interviews on tv and radio w/ PETA reps making just such a
statement. I don't have a link available. Check out their website. I wasn't
sure they would actually make such a claim in public (although it doesn't
surprise me--they are extremely left-wing), but I have seen it on their site.
I never linked to it, because quite frankly I don't really care about them
enough to bother w/ it. I know what I saw and heard. If they've changed their
position on that, then I would applaud them for it.

>If you are accusing a little
>author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
>you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
>anything to cut costs.

I would hardly consider Ann as being a (poor) "little author". I am always
skeptical when people make money off of selling fear. Everything I've heard
about her book (and I have read parts of it) indicate that she is painting
certain small segments of the industry as being more than it is and alleging
that the practices are taking place daily all over the place, all the time.
There just isn't any proof that is happening and certainly not on the scale
that she would have you believe.

>> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that
>they
>> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I wo>>
>
>Please provide links, or descriptions of your proof/research

I've contacted the company directly in writing and by phone, years ago. Again,
I'm not a packrat, I don't have anything on my person to give you.

>This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
>company!!

>This is an aside, but of couirse they would sue, they are a large
>company!! Just because they would sue doesnt mean it wouldn't be true
>information, in fact they would more likely sue if the information was
>true ala MCdonalds, etc
>

I disagree. If somebody was alleging something about me that was untrue, then
I would sue them.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
>> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
>> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
>> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
>> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
>> calculation.
>
>And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
>any pet food site and get that info.

Because you aren't at all concerned w/ actual animal nutrition. The nutrient
levels of any given food are important to know so that you can manage risk
factors. Boy, you're really a piece of work, aren't you?

>Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
>that produce human food products.

Can you prove that is actually the case? No offense, but I don't think I can
take your word on it.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
>> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
>> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
>> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
>> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
>> calculation.
>
>And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
>any pet food site and get that info.

Because you aren't at all concerned w/ actual animal nutrition. The nutrient
levels of any given food are important to know so that you can manage risk
factors. Boy, you're really a piece of work, aren't you?

>Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
>that produce human food products.

Can you prove that is actually the case? No offense, but I don't think I can
take your word on it.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >and what
>> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>> >brands?
>>
>> Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?
>>
>> -mhd
>
>Read labels.

Ann, if you've done your "research" like you claim to have done, then you know
that just reading labels doesn't provide any useful information. Surely, you
know the labeling games that are played. Don't you?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> >and what
>> >makes you think that Hill's is any better then the grocery store
>> >brands?
>>
>> Is typical of the level and quality of the research you have done?
>>
>> -mhd
>
>Read labels.

Ann, if you've done your "research" like you claim to have done, then you know
that just reading labels doesn't provide any useful information. Surely, you
know the labeling games that are played. Don't you?

[Yngver]

"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:

>As a sort of aside: I don't know this about PETA for a fact, but have read
>it (here, on this ng) many times in the past. I *think* someone provided a
>link in a past post.

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc19.html

Whenever I have read PETA's statements on companion animals, they have
qualified them by saying "in a perfect world." When phrased as it is in this
factsheet, their postion seems more understandable.

[Yngver]

"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:

>As a sort of aside: I don't know this about PETA for a fact, but have read
>it (here, on this ng) many times in the past. I *think* someone provided a
>link in a past post.

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc19.html

Whenever I have read PETA's statements on companion animals, they have
qualified them by saying "in a perfect world." When phrased as it is in this
factsheet, their postion seems more understandable.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
>> FDA
>> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
>> pinpoint a
>> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
>> PETA,
>> > etc.
>
>And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
>commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
>the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
>practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.

You're aren't answering the questions, put forth to you. You should get into
politics as you would make a good spin-doctor. You keep making this assertion,
yet you aren't backing it up.

>> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
>> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula

Which major brands are you referring to? I defy you to point that out. I dare
you.

>Diseased parts ARE used.

This is NOT happening (in the US). Meat is rejected by inspectors.

>Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
>to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
>condemned material is going ..... pet food.

Which pet foods?? Is there any proof, or just conjecture?

>As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
>Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
>animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
>then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
>feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.

Then why has IVD (owned by DelMonte) had problems importing their foods into
the US within the last few weeks if nobody was watching (regulating) these
issues? Perhaps you would like to try and explain that away?

>Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
>you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
>tell us?

Ann, you are paranoid, pure and simple. I guess you aren't interested in
finding out the truth, just spreading fear and paranoia (and making a lot of
money along the way).

> You can find the names of both the
>scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
>vet journal.

Which vet journals? Btw, meghan doesn't like it if we have to do our own
research. Using her logic, you make the allegation and you have the burden of
proof.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
>> FDA
>> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
>> pinpoint a
>> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
>> PETA,
>> > etc.
>
>And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
>commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
>the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
>practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.

You're aren't answering the questions, put forth to you. You should get into
politics as you would make a good spin-doctor. You keep making this assertion,
yet you aren't backing it up.

>> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
>> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula

Which major brands are you referring to? I defy you to point that out. I dare
you.

>Diseased parts ARE used.

This is NOT happening (in the US). Meat is rejected by inspectors.

>Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
>to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
>condemned material is going ..... pet food.

Which pet foods?? Is there any proof, or just conjecture?

>As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
>Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
>animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
>then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
>feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.

Then why has IVD (owned by DelMonte) had problems importing their foods into
the US within the last few weeks if nobody was watching (regulating) these
issues? Perhaps you would like to try and explain that away?

>Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
>you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
>tell us?

Ann, you are paranoid, pure and simple. I guess you aren't interested in
finding out the truth, just spreading fear and paranoia (and making a lot of
money along the way).

> You can find the names of both the
>scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
>vet journal.

Which vet journals? Btw, meghan doesn't like it if we have to do our own
research. Using her logic, you make the allegation and you have the burden of
proof.

[Arjun Ray]

In >,
(kate) wrote:

|> PETA ultimately wants to outlaw the owning of companion pets if you
|> didn't already know.
|
| Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
| would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
| know this?

PETA is philosophically opposed to the concept of companion animals.

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pets.html

Their policy positions follow from this: they would like to see pets
abolished. They advocate spay/neuter for the express purpose of having
such animals become extinct.

They also advocate the trapping and euthanization of feral cats.

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc10.html

Here is a compendium of quotes, the accuracy of which I can't vouch for:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt

That said, the really important fact about PETA is that they are
publicity hounds. They try their damnedest to be high-profile, in order
to raise money.

To support Ingrid Newkirk and cohorts, of course. Great racket.

[Arjun Ray]

In >,
(kate) wrote:

|> PETA ultimately wants to outlaw the owning of companion pets if you
|> didn't already know.
|
| Can you provide any links or documents that state this about PETA? I
| would like to see their policies on all companion animals. How do you
| know this?

PETA is philosophically opposed to the concept of companion animals.

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pets.html

Their policy positions follow from this: they would like to see pets
abolished. They advocate spay/neuter for the express purpose of having
such animals become extinct.

They also advocate the trapping and euthanization of feral cats.

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc10.html

Here is a compendium of quotes, the accuracy of which I can't vouch for:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt

That said, the really important fact about PETA is that they are
publicity hounds. They try their damnedest to be high-profile, in order
to raise money.

To support Ingrid Newkirk and cohorts, of course. Great racket.

[Orchid]

On 22 Aug 2003 22:17:59 GMT, (Yngver) wrote:

>"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:
>
>>As a sort of aside: I don't know this about PETA for a fact, but have read
>>it (here, on this ng) many times in the past. I *think* someone provided a
>>link in a past post.
>
>http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc19.html
>
>Whenever I have read PETA's statements on companion animals, they have
>qualified them by saying "in a perfect world." When phrased as it is in this
>factsheet, their postion seems more understandable.

Dunno -- that factsheet only makes me dislike them even more.
They oppose *working dogs*, for gods' sake. Do you really want there
to be no more Seeing Eye dogs? No more Search and Rescue dogs? No
more police dogs? No more bomb dogs, drug dogs, FDA dogs,
seizure-alert dogs, Hearing Ear dogs?
PETA says "Also, some working dog programs contribute to dog
overpopulation by breeding their dogs" Well of *course* they do.
Shelter dogs do not make good police dogs, because police dogs do not
make good pets. They are bred to work and work hard, and Fido from
the shelter is generally not going to be temperamentally, emotionally,
or physically capable of doing that work.

And don't get me started on their opinion of horses.

Or on breed-specific legislation. 20 years ago, GSDs were the
'pitbulls' of today. 10 years ago it was Dobies and Rotties. 10
years from now, who knows what the breed is that will be fashionable
for macho assholes to walk around on a giant chain?





Orchid

Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

[Orchid]

On 22 Aug 2003 22:17:59 GMT, (Yngver) wrote:

>"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:
>
>>As a sort of aside: I don't know this about PETA for a fact, but have read
>>it (here, on this ng) many times in the past. I *think* someone provided a
>>link in a past post.
>
>http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc19.html
>
>Whenever I have read PETA's statements on companion animals, they have
>qualified them by saying "in a perfect world." When phrased as it is in this
>factsheet, their postion seems more understandable.

Dunno -- that factsheet only makes me dislike them even more.
They oppose *working dogs*, for gods' sake. Do you really want there
to be no more Seeing Eye dogs? No more Search and Rescue dogs? No
more police dogs? No more bomb dogs, drug dogs, FDA dogs,
seizure-alert dogs, Hearing Ear dogs?
PETA says "Also, some working dog programs contribute to dog
overpopulation by breeding their dogs" Well of *course* they do.
Shelter dogs do not make good police dogs, because police dogs do not
make good pets. They are bred to work and work hard, and Fido from
the shelter is generally not going to be temperamentally, emotionally,
or physically capable of doing that work.

And don't get me started on their opinion of horses.

Or on breed-specific legislation. 20 years ago, GSDs were the
'pitbulls' of today. 10 years ago it was Dobies and Rotties. 10
years from now, who knows what the breed is that will be fashionable
for macho assholes to walk around on a giant chain?





Orchid

Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

[kate]

>
> Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
> real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
> even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
> paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
> of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

That statement is rude and confrontational. Look in the mirror

[kate]

>
> Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
> real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
> even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
> paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
> of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

That statement is rude and confrontational. Look in the mirror

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message
> >> Yes, some responsible companies do.
> >
> >Name just one.
>
> Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
> particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?

You are telling me that Hill's tests to ascertain the sources of
animals in the sources of protein in the raw material they use in all
their foods? You can bet I will find out if this is the truth and I
will post my findings on this list.
>
> >Has he
> >spent nearly 14 years researching/investigating this industry? Is he
> >aware of the operations of the rendering industry where some of the
> >sources of protein originate?
>
> Why don't you email him and ask him?

I'm sure he is capable of answering on this list. He replies to
everything else.
>
> > Better yet, is he aware
> >that this is an unregulated industry?
>
> This isn't an unregulated industry. Why do you keep making such claims?

Tell me what department tests the ingredients used in commerical pet
food?
>
> > First the USDA and the FSIS deal with
> >the human food chain. I have letters from both these agencies stating
> >that their mandate relates to human foods to insure that it is
> >wholesome and safe.
>
> Do you have letters confirming that they DON'T have anything at all to do w/
> inspecting ingredients that go to pet food companies or to the industry?

Yes I do, and from more then the USDA, FSIS, FDA/CVM, AAFCO, I have
letters from nearly every State inspection agencies which are a part
of the AAFCO. NO ONE INSPECTS THE INGREDIENTS USED IN COMMERCIAL PET
FOOD.
>
> > Could
> >you please cite where this agency inspects the meat used in commercial
> >pet foods, meat coming from rendering plants and slaughterhouses?
>
> You'll have to wait for my book... ;)

A joke book should be interesting.
>
> >As previously mentioned, any company using meat meal in their foods
> >should be suspect.
>
> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those are
> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
> again.

Apparently you have not learned to read either. I did not say
"chicken meal," poulty meal," I said MEAT MEAL. In case you are not
aware meat meal is a saparate entity, not chicken meal, not poultry
meal, MEAT MEAT.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message
> >> Yes, some responsible companies do.
> >
> >Name just one.
>
> Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
> particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?

You are telling me that Hill's tests to ascertain the sources of
animals in the sources of protein in the raw material they use in all
their foods? You can bet I will find out if this is the truth and I
will post my findings on this list.
>
> >Has he
> >spent nearly 14 years researching/investigating this industry? Is he
> >aware of the operations of the rendering industry where some of the
> >sources of protein originate?
>
> Why don't you email him and ask him?

I'm sure he is capable of answering on this list. He replies to
everything else.
>
> > Better yet, is he aware
> >that this is an unregulated industry?
>
> This isn't an unregulated industry. Why do you keep making such claims?

Tell me what department tests the ingredients used in commerical pet
food?
>
> > First the USDA and the FSIS deal with
> >the human food chain. I have letters from both these agencies stating
> >that their mandate relates to human foods to insure that it is
> >wholesome and safe.
>
> Do you have letters confirming that they DON'T have anything at all to do w/
> inspecting ingredients that go to pet food companies or to the industry?

Yes I do, and from more then the USDA, FSIS, FDA/CVM, AAFCO, I have
letters from nearly every State inspection agencies which are a part
of the AAFCO. NO ONE INSPECTS THE INGREDIENTS USED IN COMMERCIAL PET
FOOD.
>
> > Could
> >you please cite where this agency inspects the meat used in commercial
> >pet foods, meat coming from rendering plants and slaughterhouses?
>
> You'll have to wait for my book... ;)

A joke book should be interesting.
>
> >As previously mentioned, any company using meat meal in their foods
> >should be suspect.
>
> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those are
> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
> again.

Apparently you have not learned to read either. I did not say
"chicken meal," poulty meal," I said MEAT MEAL. In case you are not
aware meat meal is a saparate entity, not chicken meal, not poultry
meal, MEAT MEAT.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
>
> I stand corrected. (I wonder whose book that was way back then) My apologies.

The books could have been those written by Dr. Wendell Belfield or Al
Plechner.
>
> >> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
> >>
> >> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> >> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.
> >
> >Strictly your opinion but at least PETA is taking some kind of action
> >against companies like Iams in filing a complaint with the FTC for
> >false and misleading claims.
>
> Um, not my opinion. PETA has illustrated in interviews and on their website in
> the past that they ultimately want to outlaw companion animal ownership. They
> hold some pretty whacked-out views.

Again, your opinion on PETA that thousands of other do not share.
Earier this year PETA sent letters to ALL the pet food companies
asking that they sign a statement that they did not use pets in their
research. PETA has published a list of those that do not undertake
this practice and needless to say the majority of these companies use
quality material in their foods and do not have to carry on such
research in order to find the cheapest ingredients to use in their
products.
>
> >> >According to API, other large pet food
> >> >manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
> >> >others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
> >> >significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
> >> >and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
> >> >
> >> API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

In the PETA report Hill's was one of the ones that did not confirm
they DO NOT use dogs and cats in their research. Right, why would
they want to respond to this "left wing" organzation. Too bad because
they are just hanging themselves.
> >
> >Then perhaps Hill's could take legal action and prove that they don't
> >undertake such unethical practices.
>
> Why should Hill's defend themselves and "prove" that they don't do something
> that they don't do? Do you understand how silly you sound? That's like me
> asking you to prove that you aren't standing in my backyard right now and
> abusing my pets.

Yes, we are to take their word that they are not doing such unethical
research. We are to believe everything the pet food industry says.
With statements like you have just made it is like the pot calling the
kettle black.
>
> >Try checking the vet journals, no one is asking you or anyone else to
> >buy my books. I did the work so I am sure you can afford the time to
> >do such research.
>
> No thanks, I don't have that kind of time on my hands. You should, though, do
> research trying to unscare people that read your previous books. That would be
> a fair and balanced approach, assuming you care about such a thing.

You seem to have all the time in the world on your hands. Try doing a
little research yourself as it is very evident that you know nothing
about this industry.

Please tell me, if all the info in my books are scare tactics why have
neither my publisher nor I had any lawsuits? The industry has always
ordered books prior to their publication. No doubt they are searching
for some inaccurate information. Have they found it? I think not
otherwise they would be more then please to either stop the
publication of the book or launch a lawsuit. Neither has happened
although I would welcome a lawsuit at least that way it would be in
the open on what goes on in this industry. Please don't tell me they
don't care what is in the books, what I have said because I have a
list of the major pet food companies that have requested these books
prior to publication. Perhaps they just like reading.
>
> >> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that
> they
> >> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare
> you
> >> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You
> would be
> >> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> >> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.
> >
> >Hill's is mentioned in my book as one of the companies involved in
> >such practices. I'm waiting for the lawsuit.
> >
>
> Interesting, we'll see what happens.

I'm waiting.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
>
> I stand corrected. (I wonder whose book that was way back then) My apologies.

The books could have been those written by Dr. Wendell Belfield or Al
Plechner.
>
> >> >Be assured that PETA is involved as is the Animal Protection Institute
> >>
> >> 2 left-wing companies whose tactics are suspect. PETA ultimately wants to
> >> outlaw the owning of companion pets if you didn't already know.
> >
> >Strictly your opinion but at least PETA is taking some kind of action
> >against companies like Iams in filing a complaint with the FTC for
> >false and misleading claims.
>
> Um, not my opinion. PETA has illustrated in interviews and on their website in
> the past that they ultimately want to outlaw companion animal ownership. They
> hold some pretty whacked-out views.

Again, your opinion on PETA that thousands of other do not share.
Earier this year PETA sent letters to ALL the pet food companies
asking that they sign a statement that they did not use pets in their
research. PETA has published a list of those that do not undertake
this practice and needless to say the majority of these companies use
quality material in their foods and do not have to carry on such
research in order to find the cheapest ingredients to use in their
products.
>
> >> >According to API, other large pet food
> >> >manufacturers, including Hill's, Waltham's & Ralston Purina, among
> >> >others, have funded, sponsored or conducted many studies that caused
> >> >significant pain, discomfort or distress, used invasive procedures,
> >> >and/or resulted in the death of the subject animals."
> >> >
> >> API is wrong when it comes to Hill's.

In the PETA report Hill's was one of the ones that did not confirm
they DO NOT use dogs and cats in their research. Right, why would
they want to respond to this "left wing" organzation. Too bad because
they are just hanging themselves.
> >
> >Then perhaps Hill's could take legal action and prove that they don't
> >undertake such unethical practices.
>
> Why should Hill's defend themselves and "prove" that they don't do something
> that they don't do? Do you understand how silly you sound? That's like me
> asking you to prove that you aren't standing in my backyard right now and
> abusing my pets.

Yes, we are to take their word that they are not doing such unethical
research. We are to believe everything the pet food industry says.
With statements like you have just made it is like the pot calling the
kettle black.
>
> >Try checking the vet journals, no one is asking you or anyone else to
> >buy my books. I did the work so I am sure you can afford the time to
> >do such research.
>
> No thanks, I don't have that kind of time on my hands. You should, though, do
> research trying to unscare people that read your previous books. That would be
> a fair and balanced approach, assuming you care about such a thing.

You seem to have all the time in the world on your hands. Try doing a
little research yourself as it is very evident that you know nothing
about this industry.

Please tell me, if all the info in my books are scare tactics why have
neither my publisher nor I had any lawsuits? The industry has always
ordered books prior to their publication. No doubt they are searching
for some inaccurate information. Have they found it? I think not
otherwise they would be more then please to either stop the
publication of the book or launch a lawsuit. Neither has happened
although I would welcome a lawsuit at least that way it would be in
the open on what goes on in this industry. Please don't tell me they
don't care what is in the books, what I have said because I have a
list of the major pet food companies that have requested these books
prior to publication. Perhaps they just like reading.
>
> >> Because I've researched them rather vigorously and I know for a fact that
> they
> >> don't use/do the things you allege in your "book". In fact, I would dare
> you
> >> to finger Hill's as being guilty of any of the things you allege. You
> would be
> >> sued so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you. Hill's is a small animal
> >> nutrition company anyway--not a typical "dog food" company.
> >
> >Hill's is mentioned in my book as one of the companies involved in
> >such practices. I'm waiting for the lawsuit.
> >
>
> Interesting, we'll see what happens.

I'm waiting.

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do
w/
> >> that
> >> truck going to a pet food facility.
You apparently didn't read the article very closely. The first paragraph
begins with this statement, "A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food
factory spilled part of its load...."


Besides, this only "happened" a couple
> >
> >> of
> >> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
> >> supposedly
> >> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.
>
How do you know this was supposed to have happened years ago? The author
(Betsy) of the post simply said, "You obviously didn't catch the news story
about the truck that overturned on the way to the pet food factory. Do a
little research, dear."


> I've heard this same statement years ago. Either I can tell the future,
or
> you're taking events that are totally unrelated and using them to try to
prove
> your point.
>

Aren't you also the person who purported to have seen Ann Martin's book
years before she wrote it? And when confronted by the author with a
statement to the contrary could only say that "perhaps" you were wrong??

MaryL

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> Nice try, Alison--but there is nothing in there that has anything to do
w/
> >> that
> >> truck going to a pet food facility.
You apparently didn't read the article very closely. The first paragraph
begins with this statement, "A truck carrying cattle carcasses to a dog food
factory spilled part of its load...."


Besides, this only "happened" a couple
> >
> >> of
> >> days ago. The incident in question is part of an urban legend that
> >> supposedly
> >> took place months/years/decades (take your pick) ago.
>
How do you know this was supposed to have happened years ago? The author
(Betsy) of the post simply said, "You obviously didn't catch the news story
about the truck that overturned on the way to the pet food factory. Do a
little research, dear."


> I've heard this same statement years ago. Either I can tell the future,
or
> you're taking events that are totally unrelated and using them to try to
prove
> your point.
>

Aren't you also the person who purported to have seen Ann Martin's book
years before she wrote it? And when confronted by the author with a
statement to the contrary could only say that "perhaps" you were wrong??

MaryL

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
> >"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
> >what Ann has been doing since 1990.
> >
>
> I think actual experience (there's that real life thing again) makes one more
> of an expert in a field than someone who does research about a particular
> field. Especially when the person who "researches" only focuses on one aspect
> of the field and then paints that entire field with such a broad brush.

And as I have previously mentioned, does he have knowledge of ALL
aspects of the industry or is his knowledge confined to one little
area? I have written about companies that do provide quality foods
for pets minus the cheap ingredients most companies use so the entire
field is NOT painted with a broad brush.
>
> >You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
> >expect anyone to take you seriously.
> >
>
> Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
> real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
> even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
> paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
> of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

You tend to disregard anything that does not go along with your narrow
minded way of thinking.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Working in the pet food industry does not automatically make one an
> >"authority." However, doing years of research does, and that's exactly
> >what Ann has been doing since 1990.
> >
>
> I think actual experience (there's that real life thing again) makes one more
> of an expert in a field than someone who does research about a particular
> field. Especially when the person who "researches" only focuses on one aspect
> of the field and then paints that entire field with such a broad brush.

And as I have previously mentioned, does he have knowledge of ALL
aspects of the industry or is his knowledge confined to one little
area? I have written about companies that do provide quality foods
for pets minus the cheap ingredients most companies use so the entire
field is NOT painted with a broad brush.
>
> >You haven't read the book, so you can't possibly make such claims and
> >expect anyone to take you seriously.
> >
>
> Megan, I hope for your sake that you aren't this confrontational or rude in
> real life. You haven't read the book either so what makes you think you should
> even comment? I haven't read the book from cover to cover, but I've seen
> paragraphs at a time. I tend to disregard things that are one-sided as a waste
> of my time and this looks like it has an agenda behind it.

You tend to disregard anything that does not go along with your narrow
minded way of thinking.

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> >>
> >If you are accusing a little
> >author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
> >you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
> >anything to cut costs.
>
> I would hardly consider Ann as being a (poor) "little author". I am
always
> skeptical when people make money off of selling fear. Everything I've
heard
> about her book (and I have read parts of it) indicate that she is painting
> certain small segments of the industry as being more than it is and
alleging
> that the practices are taking place daily all over the place, all the
time.
> There just isn't any proof that is happening and certainly not on the
scale
> that she would have you believe.
>


You have talked at great length about what Ann Martin says in her book.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to read it first (and not just
"parts of it")?

MaryL

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >> >>
> >If you are accusing a little
> >author like Ann Martin of being 'in it for the money' then why would
> >you not believe that large pet food companies would be willing to do
> >anything to cut costs.
>
> I would hardly consider Ann as being a (poor) "little author". I am
always
> skeptical when people make money off of selling fear. Everything I've
heard
> about her book (and I have read parts of it) indicate that she is painting
> certain small segments of the industry as being more than it is and
alleging
> that the practices are taking place daily all over the place, all the
time.
> There just isn't any proof that is happening and certainly not on the
scale
> that she would have you believe.
>


You have talked at great length about what Ann Martin says in her book.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to read it first (and not just
"parts of it")?

MaryL

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
>
> That's nice, Ann. Do you even have dogs or cats? And if so, what do you feed
> them? How do you make your living? How many millions of $$ have you made
> spreading fear and confusion to people?

I have pets and have not fed them commercial pet food for nearly
fourteen years.All, including a twenty-eight year old cat are very
healthy. It's none of your business how I make a living nor how much
I earn from my books. As for "spreading fear and confusion," it's
people like you and the pet food industry that can do that with your
brain-washing of the public into thinking that commercial foods are
the only thing you can feed your pets.
>
> BTW, you haven't proven anything here either. You only state, "buy my book".

NO WHERE IN ANY OF THESE POSTS HAVE I EVERY ENCOURAGED ANYONE TO "BUY
MY BOOKS."

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
>
> That's nice, Ann. Do you even have dogs or cats? And if so, what do you feed
> them? How do you make your living? How many millions of $$ have you made
> spreading fear and confusion to people?

I have pets and have not fed them commercial pet food for nearly
fourteen years.All, including a twenty-eight year old cat are very
healthy. It's none of your business how I make a living nor how much
I earn from my books. As for "spreading fear and confusion," it's
people like you and the pet food industry that can do that with your
brain-washing of the public into thinking that commercial foods are
the only thing you can feed your pets.
>
> BTW, you haven't proven anything here either. You only state, "buy my book".

NO WHERE IN ANY OF THESE POSTS HAVE I EVERY ENCOURAGED ANYONE TO "BUY
MY BOOKS."

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Gaubster2 wrote:
>
> >
>
> The report is simply wrong. Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal for
> fertilizer. They are not used in pet foods. Since you don't believe me, why
> don't you provide some names of companies that DO use dead cats and dogs in
> their pet food. If you want to learn the facts and not the scare tactics, then
> go to www.fsis.usda.gov and do a search under "pet foods". Or look at Book 9
> of CFR (Codified Federal Regulations), part 355.

Do we take your word that dogs and cats are not in pet food? I've
provided proof they are rendered and used in pet food now let's see
the info you have that this is not the case.

Yes, I'd advise people to check out the fsis site you mentioned.
First, it is clear that this agency has no role at all as far as the
ingrdients used in pet food. Their inspection services deal with
condemned materials from slaughterhouse facilities "Condemned Product
Salvaged for Pet Food," and Inedible Products Salvaged for Pet Food."
You might also like to read the "Meat Inspection Act, " which provides
great insight into what is being used in pet food.
>
> Recently, the USDA did a study (in 2000, I think) looking for the presence of
> DNA and other substances and found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would suggest that
> dogs and cats are in being used in pet foods.

Again, it was not the USDA, it was the FDA/CVM, and it was two studies
that were undertaken on a limited number of foods, a total of 147 in
all and many from the same manufacturer. The information they provide
on this testing was very limited and I have waited over a year and a
half now for the complete doecumentation on this study which I have
requested, and was denied, under the FOIA. If they have nothing to
hide with this study I wonder why this information is being kept
secret.
>
> Now, believe whomever you want. I know it's harder to believe the truth than
> it is to have a knee-jerk reaction to a scare tactic. But if you really want
> to educate yourself, the internet isn't always the best place to start. The
> evening news gets ratings from bad news and scare tactics. You have to be
> willing to discern truth from fiction.

I hope some of the people on this list will do some research on their
own and question, in depth, the pet food companies.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Gaubster2 wrote:
>
> >
>
> The report is simply wrong. Dogs and cats can be used in bone meal for
> fertilizer. They are not used in pet foods. Since you don't believe me, why
> don't you provide some names of companies that DO use dead cats and dogs in
> their pet food. If you want to learn the facts and not the scare tactics, then
> go to www.fsis.usda.gov and do a search under "pet foods". Or look at Book 9
> of CFR (Codified Federal Regulations), part 355.

Do we take your word that dogs and cats are not in pet food? I've
provided proof they are rendered and used in pet food now let's see
the info you have that this is not the case.

Yes, I'd advise people to check out the fsis site you mentioned.
First, it is clear that this agency has no role at all as far as the
ingrdients used in pet food. Their inspection services deal with
condemned materials from slaughterhouse facilities "Condemned Product
Salvaged for Pet Food," and Inedible Products Salvaged for Pet Food."
You might also like to read the "Meat Inspection Act, " which provides
great insight into what is being used in pet food.
>
> Recently, the USDA did a study (in 2000, I think) looking for the presence of
> DNA and other substances and found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would suggest that
> dogs and cats are in being used in pet foods.

Again, it was not the USDA, it was the FDA/CVM, and it was two studies
that were undertaken on a limited number of foods, a total of 147 in
all and many from the same manufacturer. The information they provide
on this testing was very limited and I have waited over a year and a
half now for the complete doecumentation on this study which I have
requested, and was denied, under the FOIA. If they have nothing to
hide with this study I wonder why this information is being kept
secret.
>
> Now, believe whomever you want. I know it's harder to believe the truth than
> it is to have a knee-jerk reaction to a scare tactic. But if you really want
> to educate yourself, the internet isn't always the best place to start. The
> evening news gets ratings from bad news and scare tactics. You have to be
> willing to discern truth from fiction.

I hope some of the people on this list will do some research on their
own and question, in depth, the pet food companies.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> >
> >Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
> >industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
> >products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
> >on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
> >meat by-products.
>
> Then work with your local legislator to get the labels changed. I don't have a
> problem w/ that.

I have no problem with that and as far as the labeling of pet food,
the unethical advertisments they use, I have contacted the FTC and
they feel, as do legislators, that this is a self-regulated industry
and they don't want to get involved. As one government official put
it, "We have basically handed to fox the keys to the chicken coup."
>
> >> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
> >> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
> >> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
> >> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
> >> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
> >> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
> >>
> >> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
> >> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is
> happening
> >> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like
> a
> >> fear-monger to me.

I won't state what you sound like, let the list members form their own
opinion.
People should fear the worst when they purchase some of the commercial
pet foods out there unless the companies involved can provide them
with solid proof of what is being used in the products. Don't take
the word of a salesman nor the consumer rep, do some digging. Find
out where they purchase the raw materials. Find out what testing they
do on these materials. Find out if they test for things like drugs,
hormones, do they actually test the raw material for the protein
content (what animals are in the mix). How about the grains used in a
vast percentage of dry dog and cat foods? Are these shorts or
mill-ends that provide very little nutritionally? Cats are
carnivores, they require meat in their diets. When was the last time
you saw a cat attack a corn field?

>
> >Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
> >talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.
>
> And since you haven't provided any "proof" here either, you want to try to
> discredit me since you disagree w/ me. You are coming across as very arrogant.

I've provided all kinds of proof. You keep making statements with
regard to how well this industry is regulated. You've stated it is
illegal to use dogs and cats in pet food, yet not once have you
provided any documentation to that effect.
>
> >Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
> >non-descript items listed on pet food labels.
>
> Since you seem to "know" so much from your so-called "research", why don't you
> provide those kinds of details? Perhaps you don't want to stick your neck out
> quite "that" far. It pays more ($$) to let people jump to their own
> conclusions, doesn't it?

I know what comprises the ingredients in pet food but seeing you hold
yourself out as an expert in these areas I'm sure you won't mind
giving us your opinion.

People don't need to "jump to their own conclusions," they can do
their own research and not take anyone's word as to what goes into pet
food.
>
> >People should fear the
> >worst.
>
> See, you ARE a fear monger. Case closed.

You really do hate to hear the truth.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> >
> >Conspiracy, may be a little harsh but there is no doubt that this
> >industry does not want consumers to know the ingredients used in their
> >products. If all is above board let's see them list exact ingredients
> >on the label. Give us a break down of meat meal, meat and bone meal,
> >meat by-products.
>
> Then work with your local legislator to get the labels changed. I don't have a
> problem w/ that.

I have no problem with that and as far as the labeling of pet food,
the unethical advertisments they use, I have contacted the FTC and
they feel, as do legislators, that this is a self-regulated industry
and they don't want to get involved. As one government official put
it, "We have basically handed to fox the keys to the chicken coup."
>
> >> >I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef,
> >> >contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I
> >> >stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to
> >> >contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal,
> >> >check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called
> >> >"premium foods" list this on their labels.
> >>
> >> Steve is trying to be helpful to the discussion by clarifying what the
> >> ingredients mean. You portray your info as if something insidious is
> happening
> >> and then you leave people to fear the worst. Quite frankly, you sound like
> a
> >> fear-monger to me.

I won't state what you sound like, let the list members form their own
opinion.
People should fear the worst when they purchase some of the commercial
pet foods out there unless the companies involved can provide them
with solid proof of what is being used in the products. Don't take
the word of a salesman nor the consumer rep, do some digging. Find
out where they purchase the raw materials. Find out what testing they
do on these materials. Find out if they test for things like drugs,
hormones, do they actually test the raw material for the protein
content (what animals are in the mix). How about the grains used in a
vast percentage of dry dog and cat foods? Are these shorts or
mill-ends that provide very little nutritionally? Cats are
carnivores, they require meat in their diets. When was the last time
you saw a cat attack a corn field?

>
> >Quite frankly, you sound like someone who has no idea what they are
> >talking about which is evident from some of your previous posts.
>
> And since you haven't provided any "proof" here either, you want to try to
> discredit me since you disagree w/ me. You are coming across as very arrogant.

I've provided all kinds of proof. You keep making statements with
regard to how well this industry is regulated. You've stated it is
illegal to use dogs and cats in pet food, yet not once have you
provided any documentation to that effect.
>
> >Then let Steve tell us what comprises meat meal, and those other tasty
> >non-descript items listed on pet food labels.
>
> Since you seem to "know" so much from your so-called "research", why don't you
> provide those kinds of details? Perhaps you don't want to stick your neck out
> quite "that" far. It pays more ($$) to let people jump to their own
> conclusions, doesn't it?

I know what comprises the ingredients in pet food but seeing you hold
yourself out as an expert in these areas I'm sure you won't mind
giving us your opinion.

People don't need to "jump to their own conclusions," they can do
their own research and not take anyone's word as to what goes into pet
food.
>
> >People should fear the
> >worst.
>
> See, you ARE a fear monger. Case closed.

You really do hate to hear the truth.

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Ann Martin" > wrote in message
m...
> How about the grains used in a
> vast percentage of dry dog and cat foods? Are these shorts or
> mill-ends that provide very little nutritionally? Cats are
> carnivores, they require meat in their diets. When was the last time
> you saw a cat attack a corn field?

If you do a Google Groups search, you'll find that this topic has been done
to death in this ng.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Ann Martin" > wrote in message
m...
> How about the grains used in a
> vast percentage of dry dog and cat foods? Are these shorts or
> mill-ends that provide very little nutritionally? Cats are
> carnivores, they require meat in their diets. When was the last time
> you saw a cat attack a corn field?

If you do a Google Groups search, you'll find that this topic has been done
to death in this ng.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Pet Guard, a Florida company, also
> >uses meats and grains that are sold for human consumption.
>
> It seems to me that they would be using the "leftovers" from those ingredients.
> A lot of companies do what you describe above.

I don't understand what you mean by "leftovers from those
ingredients." Leftover from meats and grains, leftovers from where,
the processing plants? Well, if you would eat these leftovers that is
what is going into these foods. Open a can of the product and you will
see whole pieces of chicken and whole vegetables
>
> >As for the offenders, question the companies as to their sources of
> >ingredients.
>
> I have and that's why I use Hill's. I'm trying to get you to go out on a limb.
> You're quick to make general accusations, but aren't naming specifics.

And what is so great about Hill's? Would you eat the pet foods they
make?
As for "general accusations," I have named specifics over and over
again but I don't see this coming from you.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >Pet Guard, a Florida company, also
> >uses meats and grains that are sold for human consumption.
>
> It seems to me that they would be using the "leftovers" from those ingredients.
> A lot of companies do what you describe above.

I don't understand what you mean by "leftovers from those
ingredients." Leftover from meats and grains, leftovers from where,
the processing plants? Well, if you would eat these leftovers that is
what is going into these foods. Open a can of the product and you will
see whole pieces of chicken and whole vegetables
>
> >As for the offenders, question the companies as to their sources of
> >ingredients.
>
> I have and that's why I use Hill's. I'm trying to get you to go out on a limb.
> You're quick to make general accusations, but aren't naming specifics.

And what is so great about Hill's? Would you eat the pet foods they
make?
As for "general accusations," I have named specifics over and over
again but I don't see this coming from you.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
> >> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
> >> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
> >> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
> >> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
> >> calculation.
> >
> >And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
> >any pet food site and get that info.
>
> Because you aren't at all concerned w/ actual animal nutrition. The nutrient
> levels of any given food are important to know so that you can manage risk
> factors. Boy, you're really a piece of work, aren't you?

Back to your usual innuendoes.

Yes I am concerned with animal nutrition and I know that when a food
is rendered, cooked, processed, there leaves little, if any, adequate
nutrition.
>
> >Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
> >that produce human food products.
>
> Can you prove that is actually the case? No offense, but I don't think I can
> take your word on it.

I can, I have visited the USDA facility in Florida where the food is
made and have seen the actual raw ingredients that go into the food.
Can you say the same about you're favorite, Hill's?

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message >...
> >> Then while you are at it, pick a food and give us the nutrient
> >> breakdown, particularly the calcium and phosphorus level in the food.
> >> No need to name names here, simply give us an example of the actual
> >> food nutrient levels. Be sure that the levels you provide are either
> >> on a Dry Matter Basis or you also provide the moisture levels for
> >> calculation.
> >
> >And what the hell does this have to do with anything? You can go to
> >any pet food site and get that info.
>
> Because you aren't at all concerned w/ actual animal nutrition. The nutrient
> levels of any given food are important to know so that you can manage risk
> factors. Boy, you're really a piece of work, aren't you?

Back to your usual innuendoes.

Yes I am concerned with animal nutrition and I know that when a food
is rendered, cooked, processed, there leaves little, if any, adequate
nutrition.
>
> >Halo, produces a food, Spot's Stew, made in USDA kitchens, kitchens
> >that produce human food products.
>
> Can you prove that is actually the case? No offense, but I don't think I can
> take your word on it.

I can, I have visited the USDA facility in Florida where the food is
made and have seen the actual raw ingredients that go into the food.
Can you say the same about you're favorite, Hill's?

Ann

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Ann Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> And what is so great about Hill's? Would you eat the pet foods they
> make?

A 2 cents deal: No, but then I wouldn't care to eat mice or songbirds,
either.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[Cathy Friedmann]

"Ann Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> And what is so great about Hill's? Would you eat the pet foods they
> make?

A 2 cents deal: No, but then I wouldn't care to eat mice or songbirds,
either.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> >> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
> FDA
> >> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> >> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> >> > etc.
> >
> >And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
> >commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
> >the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
> >practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.
>
> You're aren't answering the questions, put forth to you. You should get into
> politics as you would make a good spin-doctor. You keep making this assertion,
> yet you aren't backing it up.

If they FDA does not regulate pet food what documentation would you
like to back this up? Perhaps the FDA should post a statment "We don't
regulate pet food," and maybe that would satisfy you. You say the FDA
DOES regulate pet food and the ingredients used in these foods YOU
give us the proof that this is the case. You're the one that
continues to state all the regulations that apply to this industry yet
I have yet to see a shed of proof from you that this is the case.


>
> >> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> >> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
>
> Which major brands are you referring to? I defy you to point that out. I dare
> you.

As I've mentioned, over and over again, but apparently you can't read.
I cited the Valley Protein rendering plants, their rendering of dogs
and cats and their sales to companies such as Purina. Any pet food
that contains "meat meal" can contain companion animals. If the mix
that day is cattle, sheep and chicken, that is what the meat meal will
be comprised of. If the mix the next batch is road kill, zoo animals
and dogs and cats, that's what will be in the food. GOT IT?????
>
> >Diseased parts ARE used.
>
> This is NOT happening (in the US). Meat is rejected by inspectors.

Right, the meat is rejected, condemned and processed into pet food.
Read the FSIS site you referred to in one your your posts, "Condemned
Product Saved for Pet Food," and "Inedible Products Salvaged for Pet
Food." Why the hell do you think it is condemned or inedible?
>
> >Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
> >to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
> >condemned material is going ..... pet food.
>
> Which pet foods?? Is there any proof, or just conjecture?

Yes, I have proof and I suggest if you do some research of your own
you can find out?
>
> >As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
> >Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
> >animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
> >then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
> >feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.
>
> Then why has IVD (owned by DelMonte) had problems importing their foods into
> the US within the last few weeks if nobody was watching (regulating) these
> issues? Perhaps you would like to try and explain that away?
>
> >Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
> >you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
> >tell us?
>
> Ann, you are paranoid, pure and simple. I guess you aren't interested in
> finding out the truth, just spreading fear and paranoia (and making a lot of
> money along the way).

No, if anything I think you are paranoid, paranoid that an industry
has got away with these shoddy practices for so many years is now
being discovered. You write a book about how wonderful these foods
actually are and provide all the documentation to back up your
scenario, see how well it sells.
>
> > You can find the names of both the
> >scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
> >vet journal.
>
> Which vet journals? Btw, meghan doesn't like it if we have to do our own
> research. Using her logic, you make the allegation and you have the burden of
> proof.

Try the Journal of Veterinary Research, Journal of Animal Science, the
Journal of the American Society of Nutritional Sciences, and I am sure
you will find all the information you require.

[Ann Martin]

(GAUBSTER2) wrote
> >> > What makes you think that? Do you like to believe in scare tactics? The
> FDA
> >> > enforces the regulations here in the US. I'm sure if anybody could
> pinpoint a
> >> > violation, they would be on it in a heartbeat--especially groups like
> PETA,
> >> > etc.
> >
> >And again, the FDA does not regulate the ingredients used in
> >commercial pet foods. What violation would there be to pinpoint as
> >the rendering of dogs and cats and their use in pet food is a legal
> >practice, a cheap means of disposal of these animals.
>
> You're aren't answering the questions, put forth to you. You should get into
> politics as you would make a good spin-doctor. You keep making this assertion,
> yet you aren't backing it up.

If they FDA does not regulate pet food what documentation would you
like to back this up? Perhaps the FDA should post a statment "We don't
regulate pet food," and maybe that would satisfy you. You say the FDA
DOES regulate pet food and the ingredients used in these foods YOU
give us the proof that this is the case. You're the one that
continues to state all the regulations that apply to this industry yet
I have yet to see a shed of proof from you that this is the case.


>
> >> > ><<> > Almost all of the major brands include euthanized
> >> > >> >cats and dogs in their formula
>
> Which major brands are you referring to? I defy you to point that out. I dare
> you.

As I've mentioned, over and over again, but apparently you can't read.
I cited the Valley Protein rendering plants, their rendering of dogs
and cats and their sales to companies such as Purina. Any pet food
that contains "meat meal" can contain companion animals. If the mix
that day is cattle, sheep and chicken, that is what the meat meal will
be comprised of. If the mix the next batch is road kill, zoo animals
and dogs and cats, that's what will be in the food. GOT IT?????
>
> >Diseased parts ARE used.
>
> This is NOT happening (in the US). Meat is rejected by inspectors.

Right, the meat is rejected, condemned and processed into pet food.
Read the FSIS site you referred to in one your your posts, "Condemned
Product Saved for Pet Food," and "Inedible Products Salvaged for Pet
Food." Why the hell do you think it is condemned or inedible?
>
> >Try reading the 'Meat Inspection Act,' talk
> >to a few meat inspectors and you will find out exactly where this
> >condemned material is going ..... pet food.
>
> Which pet foods?? Is there any proof, or just conjecture?

Yes, I have proof and I suggest if you do some research of your own
you can find out?
>
> >As for mad cow, Dr. Linda
> >Detweiler from the USDA can give you the figures of the number of
> >animals that are actually inspected for BSE and it amounts to less
> >then 1 percent of all downers and cattle going to slaughter and you
> >feel that this is "being watched VERRRY closely." I think not.
>
> Then why has IVD (owned by DelMonte) had problems importing their foods into
> the US within the last few weeks if nobody was watching (regulating) these
> issues? Perhaps you would like to try and explain that away?
>
> >Right, and the customer service person or sales rep is going to tell
> >you exactly what is going on. Is there another fairy tale you want to
> >tell us?
>
> Ann, you are paranoid, pure and simple. I guess you aren't interested in
> finding out the truth, just spreading fear and paranoia (and making a lot of
> money along the way).

No, if anything I think you are paranoid, paranoid that an industry
has got away with these shoddy practices for so many years is now
being discovered. You write a book about how wonderful these foods
actually are and provide all the documentation to back up your
scenario, see how well it sells.
>
> > You can find the names of both the
> >scientists and the companies involved plus the time and places in any
> >vet journal.
>
> Which vet journals? Btw, meghan doesn't like it if we have to do our own
> research. Using her logic, you make the allegation and you have the burden of
> proof.

Try the Journal of Veterinary Research, Journal of Animal Science, the
Journal of the American Society of Nutritional Sciences, and I am sure
you will find all the information you require.

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html
>
> Okay, I tried it w/o the ";" and got it to work. The problem here is that
the
> site is referencing Ann Martin who did her research in the 60s and 70s and
is
> the subject of this whole debate. Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet
foods
> in the US. If they are, it is illegal.
>
> Let's suppose this was happening for a minute. Don't you think that
people
> would find out about it and object? Then those companies would go out of
> business since they alienated so many of their consumers. No? OR I
suppose
> it's just a big conspiracy intended as a joke on pet lovers everywhere,
right?
>
>

Why do you insist that Ann Martin did her research in the 1960s and 1970s?
She should know better than you when she did her research, and she has now
posted an answer to this claim several times. Please read!

MaryL

[MaryL]

"GAUBSTER2" > wrote in message
...
> >Read this: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html
>
> Okay, I tried it w/o the ";" and got it to work. The problem here is that
the
> site is referencing Ann Martin who did her research in the 60s and 70s and
is
> the subject of this whole debate. Dead dogs and cats aren't used in pet
foods
> in the US. If they are, it is illegal.
>
> Let's suppose this was happening for a minute. Don't you think that
people
> would find out about it and object? Then those companies would go out of
> business since they alienated so many of their consumers. No? OR I
suppose
> it's just a big conspiracy intended as a joke on pet lovers everywhere,
right?
>
>

Why do you insist that Ann Martin did her research in the 1960s and 1970s?
She should know better than you when she did her research, and she has now
posted an answer to this claim several times. Please read!

MaryL

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>BTW, you haven't proven anything here
>either.

Another use of the word "either" which is a clear admission by you that
you haven't proven anything you've said. Ann has provided plenty of
things to back up what she is saying. You OTOH have not.

>You only state, "buy my book".

She has done no such thing.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:
>BTW, you haven't proven anything here
>either.

Another use of the word "either" which is a clear admission by you that
you haven't proven anything you've said. Ann has provided plenty of
things to back up what she is saying. You OTOH have not.

>You only state, "buy my book".

She has done no such thing.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>Why should Hill's defend themselves and
>"prove" that they don't do something that
>they don't do? Do you understand how
>silly you sound?

If a nationally known book makes a claim that a well known company is
involved in cruel animal experiments and they are not, that is libel and
their reputation is sullied. A large and well known company would be
expected to take issue with such libel and file a lawsuit to get the
book recalled and the false claim removed. It happens all the time. When
a company, especially one that is a leader in the industry and has
plenty of lawyer power and money, remains silent and does nothing in the
face of such serious claims it is likely that the claims are true.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Gaubster2 wrote:

>Why should Hill's defend themselves and
>"prove" that they don't do something that
>they don't do? Do you understand how
>silly you sound?

If a nationally known book makes a claim that a well known company is
involved in cruel animal experiments and they are not, that is libel and
their reputation is sullied. A large and well known company would be
expected to take issue with such libel and file a lawsuit to get the
book recalled and the false claim removed. It happens all the time. When
a company, especially one that is a leader in the industry and has
plenty of lawyer power and money, remains silent and does nothing in the
face of such serious claims it is likely that the claims are true.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[Ann Martin]

Linda Dachtyl
> > >>>
> >>> Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
> >>> and
> >>> would like to read the article.
> >>> sherry
> >>
> >> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> >> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
> >> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
> >
> > http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > -Alison in OH
>
> Sounds more like on the way to a fertilizer plant in Ohio, too. Holmes
> By-products to be exact. Unfortunately, we lived about 2 miles from this
> thing. I think the EPA finally got after them to take care of the stench.
> When there was a fog, it was the most horrible thing you could imagine other
> than finding the products on the way to it on the road.

>
> Linda

Linda, I think the article mentions that "it was hauling its load from
Whitehall, N.Y. to Boston" when the accident happened. I'll go
through my files and see if I can find the name of a pet food company
in Boston.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

Linda Dachtyl
> > >>>
> >>> Me, too, Purplecat. I've never heard about the overturned pet food truck,
> >>> and
> >>> would like to read the article.
> >>> sherry
> >>
> >> It probably never happened. I suspect that it was made up. Wouldn't have
> >> proven anything even if it did happen. There are too many people out there
> >> just waiting to be offended or scared these days.
> >
> > http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/69869.html
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > -Alison in OH
>
> Sounds more like on the way to a fertilizer plant in Ohio, too. Holmes
> By-products to be exact. Unfortunately, we lived about 2 miles from this
> thing. I think the EPA finally got after them to take care of the stench.
> When there was a fog, it was the most horrible thing you could imagine other
> than finding the products on the way to it on the road.

>
> Linda

Linda, I think the article mentions that "it was hauling its load from
Whitehall, N.Y. to Boston" when the accident happened. I'll go
through my files and see if I can find the name of a pet food company
in Boston.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote
> > >
>
> The MAXIMUM level found in any pet food was Kibbles & Bits at 28 parts
> per billion.
>
> Let's assume 1,000,000,000 micrograms of pet food which would
> therefore contain 28 micrograms of pentobarb.
>
> 1,000,000,000 micrograms = 1,000,000 grams
>
> 1,000,000 grams = 1,000 kilograms
>
> 1,000 kilograms = 2,200 pounds of food
>
> typical 40 pound dog consumes about 40 pound per month
>
> 2,200 pounds of food would thus last 4.58 years and this dog would
> have consumed 28 micrograms of pentobarb in 4.58 years.
>
> To match the 200 microgram level of pentobarb showing adverse affects
> a dog would thus have to eat the highest possible level found for 32
> years, AND every single gram of pentobarb would have to be presumed to
> have never been changed in the normal function of the body. Something
> that is patently and utterly absurd. absurd.
>
> One must either presume you are deliberately deceiving people or your
> mathmatics skills are somewhat deficient. Maybe it's more important to
> sell books and appear on the news show that it is to be truthful. Who
> knows, certainly I can't guess.

Perhaps you would like to check your math again.

1,000,000,000 micrograms = 1,000,000 milligrams not grams.

1,000,000 milligrams = 1,000 grams, not 1,000 kilograms.

1,000 grams = 1 kg. not 1,000 kilograms.

1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds not 2,200 pounds.

A large dog would eat 2.2 pounds in one day not 4.58 years as you
suggest.

Another little error. The highest level of this drug was NOT found in
Kibbles & Bits as you have stated. It was 32 ppb found in Ol' Roy.

Ann

[Ann Martin]

(Steve Crane) wrote
> > >
>
> The MAXIMUM level found in any pet food was Kibbles & Bits at 28 parts
> per billion.
>
> Let's assume 1,000,000,000 micrograms of pet food which would
> therefore contain 28 micrograms of pentobarb.
>
> 1,000,000,000 micrograms = 1,000,000 grams
>
> 1,000,000 grams = 1,000 kilograms
>
> 1,000 kilograms = 2,200 pounds of food
>
> typical 40 pound dog consumes about 40 pound per month
>
> 2,200 pounds of food would thus last 4.58 years and this dog would
> have consumed 28 micrograms of pentobarb in 4.58 years.
>
> To match the 200 microgram level of pentobarb showing adverse affects
> a dog would thus have to eat the highest possible level found for 32
> years, AND every single gram of pentobarb would have to be presumed to
> have never been changed in the normal function of the body. Something
> that is patently and utterly absurd. absurd.
>
> One must either presume you are deliberately deceiving people or your
> mathmatics skills are somewhat deficient. Maybe it's more important to
> sell books and appear on the news show that it is to be truthful. Who
> knows, certainly I can't guess.

Perhaps you would like to check your math again.

1,000,000,000 micrograms = 1,000,000 milligrams not grams.

1,000,000 milligrams = 1,000 grams, not 1,000 kilograms.

1,000 grams = 1 kg. not 1,000 kilograms.

1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds not 2,200 pounds.

A large dog would eat 2.2 pounds in one day not 4.58 years as you
suggest.

Another little error. The highest level of this drug was NOT found in
Kibbles & Bits as you have stated. It was 32 ppb found in Ol' Roy.

Ann

[GAUBSTER2]

>> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those
>are
>> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
>> again.
>
>Apparently you have not learned to read either. I did not say
>"chicken meal," poulty meal," I said MEAT MEAL. In case you are not
>aware meat meal is a saparate entity, not chicken meal, not poultry
>meal, MEAT MEAT.

I know that, but the average person reading you doesn't know that, because you
don't take the time to clarify that point. You lead to people to believe that
meat meal could be any meat. When Steve Crane tried to clarify that point, you
attacked him. You lead people to assume things that aren't neccesarily true.

>> >> Yes, some responsible companies do.
>> >
>> >Name just one.
>>
>> Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
>> particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?
>
>You are telling me that Hill's tests to ascertain the sources of
>animals in the sources of protein in the raw material they use in all
>their foods? You can bet I will find out if this is the truth and I
>will post my findings on this list.

You still haven't answered my question. You only want one side of the argument
presented, don't you? ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those
>are
>> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
>> again.
>
>Apparently you have not learned to read either. I did not say
>"chicken meal," poulty meal," I said MEAT MEAL. In case you are not
>aware meat meal is a saparate entity, not chicken meal, not poultry
>meal, MEAT MEAT.

I know that, but the average person reading you doesn't know that, because you
don't take the time to clarify that point. You lead to people to believe that
meat meal could be any meat. When Steve Crane tried to clarify that point, you
attacked him. You lead people to assume things that aren't neccesarily true.

>> >> Yes, some responsible companies do.
>> >
>> >Name just one.
>>
>> Hill's Pet Nutrition. Now let's play your game. Why don't you name a
>> particular brand of food that uses dead dogs and cats in it?
>
>You are telling me that Hill's tests to ascertain the sources of
>animals in the sources of protein in the raw material they use in all
>their foods? You can bet I will find out if this is the truth and I
>will post my findings on this list.

You still haven't answered my question. You only want one side of the argument
presented, don't you? ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those
>are
>> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
>> again.
>
>I've answered this previously.
>

So what is the answer? You are brilliant when it comes to avoiding direct
questions. You don't allow yourself to go out on a limb where it could be
dangerous for you. Pretty savvy.

>Here is a link to an organization Defense of Animals (no doubt another
>"left wing" group in your opinion.

That's hardly a fair and balanced approach to the issue. I didn't see anywhere
the names of the rendering companies that sell to particular pet food companies
and which foods the alleged "victims" go into. Rendering plants can sell dead
dogs and cats to fertilizer makers, but doesn't neccessarily mean that those
animals go into pet food--even if the rendering plant sells ingredients to pet
food companies. You're alleging that because they go to the same place, they
MUST go into pet foods.

[GAUBSTER2]

>> SO....any company (in the US) that uses chicken meal, poulty meal (those
>are
>> meat meals you know) uses dead dogs and cats?? Hmm?? You're being general
>> again.
>
>I've answered this previously.
>

So what is the answer? You are brilliant when it comes to avoiding direct
questions. You don't allow yourself to go out on a limb where it could be
dangerous for you. Pretty savvy.

>Here is a link to an organization Defense of Animals (no doubt another
>"left wing" group in your opinion.

That's hardly a fair and balanced approach to the issue. I didn't see anywhere
the names of the rendering companies that sell to particular pet food companies
and which foods the alleged "victims" go into. Rendering plants can sell dead
dogs and cats to fertilizer makers, but doesn't neccessarily mean that those
animals go into pet food--even if the rendering plant sells ingredients to pet
food companies. You're alleging that because they go to the same place, they
MUST go into pet foods.

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

>I have NEVER hidden my employment in
>any way. I do periodically post a note on
>this and couple other NG's that I frequent.

In all the time I've read this newsgroup I can recall only one time that
you posted that you worked for Hills on your own without someone else
pointing it out first. You never say you do unless someone brings it up
first.

>I cannot do as you ask for legal reasons.
>Any comments I make here are my OWN
>thoughts and do not in any represent the
>company I work for. If I were to append a
>comment that I work for Hill's on every
>note, the legal beagles insist that would
>mean that I am speaking for Hill's and I
>am not doing so.

Yeah..sure..ok...
The whole point of a disclaimer is to let people know that your opinions
are your own and not necessarily those of the company you work for.
Disclaimers are used all the time on radio, TV, webpages and print
media, yet somehow the principle can't apply to you? Your "legal beagle"
claim is ludicrous.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[[email protected]]

Steve wrote:

>I have NEVER hidden my employment in
>any way. I do periodically post a note on
>this and couple other NG's that I frequent.

In all the time I've read this newsgroup I can recall only one time that
you posted that you worked for Hills on your own without someone else
pointing it out first. You never say you do unless someone brings it up
first.

>I cannot do as you ask for legal reasons.
>Any comments I make here are my OWN
>thoughts and do not in any represent the
>company I work for. If I were to append a
>comment that I work for Hill's on every
>note, the legal beagles insist that would
>mean that I am speaking for Hill's and I
>am not doing so.

Yeah..sure..ok...
The whole point of a disclaimer is to let people know that your opinions
are your own and not necessarily those of the company you work for.
Disclaimers are used all the time on radio, TV, webpages and print
media, yet somehow the principle can't apply to you? Your "legal beagle"
claim is ludicrous.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

[GAUBSTER2]

>I was NOT talking about the presence of pentobarbital.

That was the whole genesis of the study. You know that perfectly well, but you
are trying to muddy the waters. I'm sure glad I don't know you in real life.

>Virtually all their dry foods contain "animal" fat - which means it can
>be from *any* animal including cats or dogs.

But is it? Why don't you call them and ask them? Oh wait, because they would
just lie to you anyway. Every body is out to get you--it's all a big
conspiracy. And besides, that wouldn't be proof to you anyway, now would it?

[GAUBSTER2]

>I was NOT talking about the presence of pentobarbital.

That was the whole genesis of the study. You know that perfectly well, but you
are trying to muddy the waters. I'm sure glad I don't know you in real life.

>Virtually all their dry foods contain "animal" fat - which means it can
>be from *any* animal including cats or dogs.

But is it? Why don't you call them and ask them? Oh wait, because they would
just lie to you anyway. Every body is out to get you--it's all a big
conspiracy. And besides, that wouldn't be proof to you anyway, now would it?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Yeah and so are whales and people. Using your convoluted suggestive logic,
>> that means that it is possible that there are dead people and dead whales
>in
>> pet food. Hey, maybe you could write a book expousing that line of bull.
>
>Yes, and chances are they would use them if they could get away with
>it.

Right there is another example of your warped thinking. You are not an
unbiased source of information and that's what clear-headed, intelligent people
will figure out about you. You automatically assume the worst and that's
exactly what you are trying to get other people to do also (and you're making
$$ off of those people at the same time).

>Whenever you
>are backed into a corner and proven wrong your only retort is name
>calling.

You mean Megan?

I do believe you are a fear-monger who profits off of the fear you are
peddleing. And if someone acts like a jerk, then they be a jerk, right?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> Yeah and so are whales and people. Using your convoluted suggestive logic,
>> that means that it is possible that there are dead people and dead whales
>in
>> pet food. Hey, maybe you could write a book expousing that line of bull.
>
>Yes, and chances are they would use them if they could get away with
>it.

Right there is another example of your warped thinking. You are not an
unbiased source of information and that's what clear-headed, intelligent people
will figure out about you. You automatically assume the worst and that's
exactly what you are trying to get other people to do also (and you're making
$$ off of those people at the same time).

>Whenever you
>are backed into a corner and proven wrong your only retort is name
>calling.

You mean Megan?

I do believe you are a fear-monger who profits off of the fear you are
peddleing. And if someone acts like a jerk, then they be a jerk, right?

[GAUBSTER2]

>> BTW, you haven't proven anything here either. You only state, "buy my
>book".
>
>NO WHERE IN ANY OF THESE POSTS HAVE I EVERY ENCOURAGED ANYONE TO "BUY
>MY BOOKS."

....only if we want to know more, then it's "in your book".

> As for "spreading fear and confusion," it's
>people like you and the pet food industry that can do that with your
>brain-washing of the public into thinking that commercial foods are
>the only thing you can feed your pets.

Yeah, right. I'm one person who directly challenges you and you haven't backed
up anything you've said here (or in Megan's words...you haven't proven
anything). I don't believe that dead dogs and cats are used to any great
extent in pet foods. You'd have us all believe that it is a wide-spread
practice that is in (probably) almost every bag and can on the shelves.


>It's none of your business how I make a living nor how much
>I earn from my books.

Perhaps not, but when you are spreading fear and confusion and profiting off of
that, it makes me wonder....

[GAUBSTER2]

>> BTW, you haven't proven anything here either. You only state, "buy my
>book".
>
>NO WHERE IN ANY OF THESE POSTS HAVE I EVERY ENCOURAGED ANYONE TO "BUY
>MY BOOKS."

....only if we want to know more, then it's "in your book".

> As for "spreading fear and confusion," it's
>people like you and the pet food industry that can do that with your
>brain-washing of the public into thinking that commercial foods are
>the only thing you can feed your pets.

Yeah, right. I'm one person who directly challenges you and you haven't backed
up anything you've said here (or in Megan's words...you haven't proven
anything). I don't believe that dead dogs and cats are used to any great
extent in pet foods. You'd have us all believe that it is a wide-spread
practice that is in (probably) almost every bag and can on the shelves.


>It's none of your business how I make a living nor how much
>I earn from my books.

Perhaps not, but when you are spreading fear and confusion and profiting off of
that, it makes me wonder....

[GAUBSTER2]

>Another use of the word "either" which is a clear admission by you that
>you haven't proven anything you've said. Ann has provided plenty of
>things to back up what she is saying. You OTOH have not.

Megan, go back and reread your posts and Ann's. She hasn't "proven" anything.
She "says" she has the info but hasn't proven anything she has is legit one way
or the other. You seem ready to believe her even though she hasn't provided
anything here. Granted, it's tough to "prove" anything when it's done remotely
via a computer. Something you won't admit to.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Another use of the word "either" which is a clear admission by you that
>you haven't proven anything you've said. Ann has provided plenty of
>things to back up what she is saying. You OTOH have not.

Megan, go back and reread your posts and Ann's. She hasn't "proven" anything.
She "says" she has the info but hasn't proven anything she has is legit one way
or the other. You seem ready to believe her even though she hasn't provided
anything here. Granted, it's tough to "prove" anything when it's done remotely
via a computer. Something you won't admit to.

[GAUBSTER2]

>Read the article from the National Defense League (previously
>posted)where millions of dogs and cats from shelters are being
>rendered AND USED IN PET FOODS. Show me what fertilizer plants are
>buying these rendered products.
>>
>> >Fertilizer, perhaps
>> >some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
>> >rendering plants that sell to pet food companies.
>

No, no no. You SHOW ME what pet food companies are buying from the rendering
plants mentioned in the article. Why don't you play your own game, here? Hmm?

[GAUBSTER2]

>Read the article from the National Defense League (previously
>posted)where millions of dogs and cats from shelters are being
>rendered AND USED IN PET FOODS. Show me what fertilizer plants are
>buying these rendered products.
>>
>> >Fertilizer, perhaps
>> >some but it seems odd that many of these animals are going to
>> >rendering plants that sell to pet food companies.
>

No, no no. You SHOW ME what pet food companies are buying from the rendering
plants mentioned in the article. Why don't you play your own game, here? Hmm?

[GAUBSTER2]

> The information they provide
>on this testing was very limited and I have waited over a year and a
>half now for the complete doecumentation on this study which I have
>requested, and was denied, under the FOIA. If they have nothing to
>hide with this study I wonder why this information is being kept
>secret.

Perhaps it's just a big, bogged-down federal bureaucracy?

>Do we take your word that dogs and cats are not in pet food? I've
>provided proof they are rendered and used in pet food now let's see
>the info you have that this is not the case.

Which proof have you provided? Only your word, but no proof.

>You might also like to read the "Meat Inspection Act, " which provides
>great insight into what is being used in pet food.

Since I don't have a copy of that lying around, perhaps you could point me in
the right direction via the internet? :)

[GAUBSTER2]

> The information they provide
>on this testing was very limited and I have waited over a year and a
>half now for the complete doecumentation on this study which I have
>requested, and was denied, under the FOIA. If they have nothing to
>hide with this study I wonder why this information is being kept
>secret.

Perhaps it's just a big, bogged-down federal bureaucracy?

>Do we take your word that dogs and cats are not in pet food? I've
>provided proof they are rendered and used in pet food now let's see
>the info you have that this is not the case.

Which proof have you provided? Only your word, but no proof.

>You might also like to read the "Meat Inspection Act, " which provides
>great insight into what is being used in pet food.

Since I don't have a copy of that lying around, perhaps you could point me in
the right direction via the internet? :)

[GAUBSTER2]

>People should fear the worst when they purchase some of the commercial
>pet foods out there

There you go again! Do you listen to yourself?

>Quite frankly, you sound like
>> a
>> >> fear-monger to me.
>

>I've provided all kinds of proof.

Uh, no you haven't.

>> Since you seem to "know" so much from your so-called "research", why don't
>you
>> provide those kinds of details? Perhaps you don't want to stick your neck
>out
>> quite "that" far. It pays more ($$) to let people jump to their own
>> conclusions, doesn't it?
>

You're are still avoiding my question.

>People don't need to "jump to their own conclusions," they can do
>their own research and not take anyone's word as to what goes into pet
>food.

Including yours?

>> >People should fear the
>> >worst.
>>
>> See, you ARE a fear monger. Case closed.
>
>You really do hate to hear the truth.
>

....and AGAIN...there you are!