A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ann MArtin claims debate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 31st 03, 05:53 AM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ann Martin" wrote in message
om...

First, I have never stated that "all pet food contains large amounts
of rejected meat meals


....but you skillfully worded your phrases to leave the reader with the
impression all pet food contains contaminated or rejected ingredients. Most
pet owners know very little about feline nutrition and are very susceptible
to ambiguous statements. So its easy for an author to phase a statement in
such a way that the reader draws the conclusion the author wanted the reader
to reach without the author being liable for making false statements.

Do you have any actual formal training in veterinary nutrition, or do you
just write books to make money by scaring people based on your own
conclusions and agenda?

Lets be realistic, if even 1/10 of your book was true, thousands of cats who
eat commercial cat food would be dropping like flies every day instead of
living well into their teens and early
twenties....

At least you oppose raw feeding.. I'll give your book that.

..



  #12  
Old August 31st 03, 05:57 AM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: (Steve Crane)


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?


An amount that makes a cat sick or causes disease.... Duh!

If a person feeds a food with even trace amounts of
pentobarb, ethoxyquin, BHT, BHA, etc., what is the effect over years of
feeding?


You really are a scaremonger and have absolutely no clue about what you're
talking about. You just ramble on with the same scare tactics over and over
without ever providing a shred of evidence to support your bullsh!t.

I and others have asked you a thousand times to cite a *single* case of
ethoxyquin, BHT, or BHA toxicity reported in a cat in the 20 years these
antioxidants have been used in pet foods. You have *never* *once* produced
a *single* credible reference. Not one. But you continue to use the same
scare tactics and imply there's some danger when *none* have ever been
documented in cats.

Now I'll ask you to produce a *single* case of pentobarbital toxicity in a
cat. I'm betting you'll come up empty just as you *always* do. That's why
you have no credibility - other than with newbies who know absolutely
nothing and believe anything. You belong in a gossip newsgroup, not a cat
health group.

You can't base your argument on the benefits of feeding raw food because
there are *none* so you denigrate commercial pet foods. You're like a high
school kid who can't win a girl with his own qualities so he denigrates the
other guy.

Try something different for a change.... produce some proof to support your
accusations and implications instead of starting and perpetuating rumors and
scare tactics.... like you usually do....


..



  #13  
Old August 31st 03, 05:57 AM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: (Steve Crane)


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?


An amount that makes a cat sick or causes disease.... Duh!

If a person feeds a food with even trace amounts of
pentobarb, ethoxyquin, BHT, BHA, etc., what is the effect over years of
feeding?


You really are a scaremonger and have absolutely no clue about what you're
talking about. You just ramble on with the same scare tactics over and over
without ever providing a shred of evidence to support your bullsh!t.

I and others have asked you a thousand times to cite a *single* case of
ethoxyquin, BHT, or BHA toxicity reported in a cat in the 20 years these
antioxidants have been used in pet foods. You have *never* *once* produced
a *single* credible reference. Not one. But you continue to use the same
scare tactics and imply there's some danger when *none* have ever been
documented in cats.

Now I'll ask you to produce a *single* case of pentobarbital toxicity in a
cat. I'm betting you'll come up empty just as you *always* do. That's why
you have no credibility - other than with newbies who know absolutely
nothing and believe anything. You belong in a gossip newsgroup, not a cat
health group.

You can't base your argument on the benefits of feeding raw food because
there are *none* so you denigrate commercial pet foods. You're like a high
school kid who can't win a girl with his own qualities so he denigrates the
other guy.

Try something different for a change.... produce some proof to support your
accusations and implications instead of starting and perpetuating rumors and
scare tactics.... like you usually do....


..



  #14  
Old August 31st 03, 10:19 AM
~*SooZy*~
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ann Martin" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Crane) wrote in message

. com...
I thought I would start a new thread and the other is getting
unwieldy.

Let's take a look at this from another angle.

ONLY for the sake of argument, let's suppose Ann Martin is right and
all pet food contains large amounts of rejected meat meals from human
processing, and all the dead cows and pigs from the feed lots. Just to
make sure everyone understands - I disagree that such is the case for
the major premium manufacturers and can state unequivocally it is not
the case for Hill's.


First, I have never stated that "all pet food contains large amounts
of rejected meat meals from human processing, and all the dead cows
and pigs from the feed lots." Many do. As I have stated a number of
times, MEAT MEAL, not chicken meat, not poultry meal, MEAT MEAL, is
material from rendering plants and CAN contain, 4-D animals, road
kill,(too large to be buried at road side), zoo animals, restaurant
garbage and grease, grocery store garbage and euthanized dogs and
cats. I might also add when I contacted David Dzanis, formerly with
the CVM and asked if the "ingredient definitions" that the AAFCO
publishes also applied to pet food, his reply was "YES". Maybe we
should take a look at some of these tasty ingredients. "Dehydrated
garbage," "Dehydrated Food Waste," "Hydrolysed hair," "Dried poultry
Waste," "Dried Swine Waste," "Undried processed animal waste product,"
The latter is defined as "composed of excreta, with or without the
litter, from poultry, ruminants, or any other animal except humans."
Guess our pets would be getting all the nutrients they require in this
mix.

But just to take this debate further along let's assume the opposite.
Please provide for me an example of a nutrient that is missing, or a
nutrient that is in excess, *and* that has proven to be harmful at the
level included in the final end product the consumer feeds. Don't
waste our time with bogus claims of pentobarb, that's already been
proven to be nothing more than scare tactics. Give me a nutrient in
excess or a nutrient that is too low and then prove some harm has
occurred. This needs to be factual, not opinion. Show us what disease,
what deaths, etc have directly occurred because of this supposed
contamination. Don't waste our time with Internet Fantasy from the
lunatic fringe - provide us with some factual proof.


Try zinc with a level of 1150 ppm? I could also state that three
mycotoxins were also found in this "premium" pet food.


My Father worked in a big well known bakery in the UK a few years back, once
a week Waltham came to collect all the waste/out of date, cakes, bread etc
to add to their feed, which was returned from the major super markets.
Whiskers and Pedigree where made by Waltham, which is meant to be a good
well know brand... terrible to then how many people are wasting their money
on feeding their cats doughnuts!


  #15  
Old August 31st 03, 10:19 AM
~*SooZy*~
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ann Martin" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Crane) wrote in message

. com...
I thought I would start a new thread and the other is getting
unwieldy.

Let's take a look at this from another angle.

ONLY for the sake of argument, let's suppose Ann Martin is right and
all pet food contains large amounts of rejected meat meals from human
processing, and all the dead cows and pigs from the feed lots. Just to
make sure everyone understands - I disagree that such is the case for
the major premium manufacturers and can state unequivocally it is not
the case for Hill's.


First, I have never stated that "all pet food contains large amounts
of rejected meat meals from human processing, and all the dead cows
and pigs from the feed lots." Many do. As I have stated a number of
times, MEAT MEAL, not chicken meat, not poultry meal, MEAT MEAL, is
material from rendering plants and CAN contain, 4-D animals, road
kill,(too large to be buried at road side), zoo animals, restaurant
garbage and grease, grocery store garbage and euthanized dogs and
cats. I might also add when I contacted David Dzanis, formerly with
the CVM and asked if the "ingredient definitions" that the AAFCO
publishes also applied to pet food, his reply was "YES". Maybe we
should take a look at some of these tasty ingredients. "Dehydrated
garbage," "Dehydrated Food Waste," "Hydrolysed hair," "Dried poultry
Waste," "Dried Swine Waste," "Undried processed animal waste product,"
The latter is defined as "composed of excreta, with or without the
litter, from poultry, ruminants, or any other animal except humans."
Guess our pets would be getting all the nutrients they require in this
mix.

But just to take this debate further along let's assume the opposite.
Please provide for me an example of a nutrient that is missing, or a
nutrient that is in excess, *and* that has proven to be harmful at the
level included in the final end product the consumer feeds. Don't
waste our time with bogus claims of pentobarb, that's already been
proven to be nothing more than scare tactics. Give me a nutrient in
excess or a nutrient that is too low and then prove some harm has
occurred. This needs to be factual, not opinion. Show us what disease,
what deaths, etc have directly occurred because of this supposed
contamination. Don't waste our time with Internet Fantasy from the
lunatic fringe - provide us with some factual proof.


Try zinc with a level of 1150 ppm? I could also state that three
mycotoxins were also found in this "premium" pet food.


My Father worked in a big well known bakery in the UK a few years back, once
a week Waltham came to collect all the waste/out of date, cakes, bread etc
to add to their feed, which was returned from the major super markets.
Whiskers and Pedigree where made by Waltham, which is meant to be a good
well know brand... terrible to then how many people are wasting their money
on feeding their cats doughnuts!


  #16  
Old August 31st 03, 12:27 PM
Ann Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil P." wrote

First, I have never stated that "all pet food contains large amounts
of rejected meat meals


...but you skillfully worded your phrases to leave the reader with the
impression all pet food contains contaminated or rejected ingredients. Most
pet owners know very little about feline nutrition and are very susceptible
to ambiguous statements. So its easy for an author to phase a statement in
such a way that the reader draws the conclusion the author wanted the reader
to reach without the author being liable for making false statements.


And what do you think is going into pet food? If it was meat, grains
or fats found fit for human consumption they would not be using them
in pet food. Meats, rejected, unfit for human consumption are used in
pet food. Animals, that contain high levels of hormones and drugs are
rejected for human consumption are dumped for pet food. Rendered
material, a wide array of dead animals, are mixed together to produce
meat meal. Talk to a meat inspector or an executive from a rendering
plant and they will tell you what is going for pet food.

Do you have any actual formal training in veterinary nutrition, or do you
just write books to make money by scaring people based on your own
conclusions and agenda?


These are not my "conclusions" or "agenda". Read the extensive
endnotes in any of my books and you will see that ALL information
comes from reputable sources.

Lets be realistic, if even 1/10 of your book was true, thousands of cats who
eat commercial cat food would be dropping like flies every day instead of
living well into their teens and early
twenties....


And thousands of cats did die from lack of taurine in the commercial
pet foods.


At least you oppose raw feeding.. I'll give your book that.

.

  #17  
Old August 31st 03, 12:27 PM
Ann Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil P." wrote

First, I have never stated that "all pet food contains large amounts
of rejected meat meals


...but you skillfully worded your phrases to leave the reader with the
impression all pet food contains contaminated or rejected ingredients. Most
pet owners know very little about feline nutrition and are very susceptible
to ambiguous statements. So its easy for an author to phase a statement in
such a way that the reader draws the conclusion the author wanted the reader
to reach without the author being liable for making false statements.


And what do you think is going into pet food? If it was meat, grains
or fats found fit for human consumption they would not be using them
in pet food. Meats, rejected, unfit for human consumption are used in
pet food. Animals, that contain high levels of hormones and drugs are
rejected for human consumption are dumped for pet food. Rendered
material, a wide array of dead animals, are mixed together to produce
meat meal. Talk to a meat inspector or an executive from a rendering
plant and they will tell you what is going for pet food.

Do you have any actual formal training in veterinary nutrition, or do you
just write books to make money by scaring people based on your own
conclusions and agenda?


These are not my "conclusions" or "agenda". Read the extensive
endnotes in any of my books and you will see that ALL information
comes from reputable sources.

Lets be realistic, if even 1/10 of your book was true, thousands of cats who
eat commercial cat food would be dropping like flies every day instead of
living well into their teens and early
twenties....


And thousands of cats did die from lack of taurine in the commercial
pet foods.


At least you oppose raw feeding.. I'll give your book that.

.

  #18  
Old August 31st 03, 12:56 PM
Ann Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #19  
Old August 31st 03, 12:56 PM
Ann Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #20  
Old August 31st 03, 01:17 PM
Ann Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Phil P." wrote in message ...
"PawsForThought" wrote in message


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?


An amount that makes a cat sick or causes disease.... Duh!


And other then an eight week study that the FDA/CVM conducted on dogs
no other studies have been undertaken as to the toxicity of this drug
over a period of months or years. It's easy for people to say that
pentobarbital is not toxic but if it had no effect on animals why then
were these studies undertaken in the first place?

If a person feeds a food with even trace amounts of
pentobarb, ethoxyquin, BHT, BHA, etc., what is the effect over years of
feeding?


We do know that all the above do have an effect on humans and the
FDA/CVM has lowered the amounts of ethoxyquin allowed in pet food
because of illnesses in pets. In 1997 the FDA/CVM lowered the levels
from l50 ppm to 75 ppm.

You really are a scaremonger and have absolutely no clue about what you're
talking about. You just ramble on with the same scare tactics over and over
without ever providing a shred of evidence to support your bullsh!t.


You, like a few others on this list, are the ones that are full of
"bullsh!t."
You all resort to derogatory remarks when backed into a corner. With
people like you I'd tell Lauren, Megan, and a few others, don't waste
your time replying to people like this as their prime goal is to put
people down and avoid carrying on an intelligent discussion.

I and others have asked you a thousand times to cite a *single* case of
ethoxyquin, BHT, or BHA toxicity reported in a cat in the 20 years these
antioxidants have been used in pet foods. You have *never* *once* produced
a *single* credible reference. Not one. But you continue to use the same
scare tactics and imply there's some danger when *none* have ever been
documented in cats.

Now I'll ask you to produce a *single* case of pentobarbital toxicity in a
cat. I'm betting you'll come up empty just as you *always* do. That's why
you have no credibility - other than with newbies who know absolutely
nothing and believe anything. You belong in a gossip newsgroup, not a cat
health group.


Perhaps some cat owner's should question why the FDA/CVM has never
tested cat foods for this drug. Could it be because they have spent so
much time with their cover-up on the dog foods that they will not do
any further studies?

You can't base your argument on the benefits of feeding raw food because
there are *none* so you denigrate commercial pet foods. You're like a high
school kid who can't win a girl with his own qualities so he denigrates the
other guy.


I'm not in favor of feeding raw but given a choice between raw and
commercial foods raw would be top on my list.

Again you resort to childish remarks.

Try something different for a change.... produce some proof to support your
accusations and implications instead of starting and perpetuating rumors and
scare tactics.... like you usually do....


Geez, another one that must work or the pet food industry or has some
hidden agenda.


.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vaccinations The great Debate *~*SooZy*~* Cat health & behaviour 50 August 26th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.