Just read about what is really in cat food

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

(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) 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 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 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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

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.