olitter (PawsForThought) wrote

Let's see if I can make this simpler. Martin claimed that there was
*TOXIC* levels of pentobarb in foods - your web site proved that was
NOT true. Nobody here has ever said there were never any traces found
in cheap foods.

But what is toxic exactly? If a person feeds a food with even trace amounts of
pentobarb, ethoxyquin, BHT, BHA, etc., what is the effect over years of
feeding? How much build up do you get? How do all these different chemicals
react over the years in a cat. I don't know about you, but I would not want to
feed that garbage to my pets.

You are so right, Lauren. You have to realize why these studies were
undertaken in the first place. It was because dogs had built up a
resistance to pentobarbital. If this drug did not affect them, over a
period of time, this would not be the case. No dry commercial cat
foods were tested in this study. Are we to assume that the same
inferior ingredients are not used in cat foods? Perhaps it is because
the FDA/CVM has not received reports from vets, as yet, stating that
cats have also built up a resistance or is it the fact that this drug
is needed in smaller amounts to euthanize cats? There is a private
lab in the U.S.that is now considering testing some of the cat foods.

Also, I believe that the testing was a few years
ago, 1998? I don't have time to look now. But anyway, what is going on now?
Which foods have it now? Things change. What one company may not have done
then, or what one company may not have had in its sample then, could very well
be there now. The pet food industry is highly unregulated as far as
ingredients go, so who really knows what's in there? Except you of course,
because you are in the industry. But what about the average pet owner? Do
they really know what is in their pet food?

Unless a person actually has the food tested they have no idea what is
in the foods they are feeding their pets, cats or dogs. It is clear
that the industry does not test the raw ingredients they use. This is
very convenient because if their product is found to contain a
deleterious substance they can always claim stupidity which was the
case in 1990 when euthanized dogs and cats were found in Purina pet
food. You also have the two cases, that we know about, where pet
foods were contaminated with mycotoxins, mycotoxins found in moldy
grains and which killed a number of dogs. How many consumers can
actually afford to have every bag or can of pet food they are feeding
their pet, tested?

For many people, reading the label
is just plain confusing. I think if what Ann Martin wrote in her book was
untrue, she would be facing many lawsuits. But I think she has a point when
she says the pet food companies don't want to sue because then the industry
would be open to the public.

I would welcome any lawsuit and if what was in my books was not the
truth you can bet the pet food companies would be the first to sue. I
have to assume two things, first that they know the information i my
books is true and, second, they know that any lawsuit would bring out
the truth as to what they were actually doing.

Ann
_____
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm