These people are pathetic...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724565/

"The pet food linked to the deaths of 16 animals has shown no signs of
contamination, the manufacturer says, and the company cannot explain
why the cats and dog developed acute kidney failure and died."

So... is it that the company "can't" explain what caused the acute
kidney failure and deaths, or that the company WON'T explain what
caused the acute kidney failure and deaths of these animals (illnesses
deaths, I might add, that have been linked to this company's FOOD!)??

CheesenCrackers... gimme a friggin' break.

--- (Unca) Cory

Cory wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724565/

"The pet food linked to the deaths of 16 animals has shown no signs of
contamination, the manufacturer says, and the company cannot explain
why the cats and dog developed acute kidney failure and died."

So... is it that the company "can't" explain what caused the acute
kidney failure and deaths, or that the company WON'T explain what
caused the acute kidney failure and deaths of these animals (illnesses
deaths, I might add, that have been linked to this company's FOOD!)??

CheesenCrackers... gimme a friggin' break.


It looks bad. I guess we can't totally rule out the possibility of
sabotage from a competitor, but we may never know what happened without an
independent investigation and there has been more than enough time to cover
any tracks there might have been. No company should be left to investigate
itself in these matters. When a murderer kills someone, do they have the
murderer investigate the crime? I think there might be trouble getting a
conviction in such a case, just as we see here.
They have also been talking about tracing the trouble back to wheat gluten
or some other supplied product like that. What if it were simply
unsanitary conditions in their own factory? You would think they'd
investigate that, but did they? If they did, did they do it properly and
with thoroughness? What might be their motivation for doing so? There's
not much to credit this company.

--
Regards, Fred

On 21 Mar 2007 14:25:56 -0700, "Cory" wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724565/

"The pet food linked to the deaths of 16 animals has shown no signs of
contamination, the manufacturer says, and the company cannot explain
why the cats and dog developed acute kidney failure and died."

So... is it that the company "can't" explain what caused the acute
kidney failure and deaths, or that the company WON'T explain what
caused the acute kidney failure and deaths of these animals (illnesses
deaths, I might add, that have been linked to this company's FOOD!)??

CheesenCrackers... gimme a friggin' break.

--- (Unca) Cory
There is a class action lawsuit on file, now. That's good news.

This company knew about the problem back in DECEMBER.

But they CHOSE to cover it up, and delay the expensive recall, resulting
in an unknown number of cat and dog deaths.

I hope an animal loving judge throws the book, and printing press it was
made on, at these cat and dog murderers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life without cats would be only marginally worth living."
-TC, and the unmercifully, relentlessly, sweet calico kitty, Kenzie.

How you behave towards cats here below determines your status in Heaven.
- Robert Heinlein

Life is very difficult. Once you understand that, life becomes easier.
-Buddha

On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, Fred wrote:
Cory wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724565/

"The pet food linked to the deaths of 16 animals has shown no signs of
contamination, the manufacturer says, and the company cannot explain
why the cats and dog developed acute kidney failure and died."

So... is it that the company "can't" explain what caused the acute
kidney failure and deaths, or that the company WON'T explain what
caused the acute kidney failure and deaths of these animals (illnesses
deaths, I might add, that have been linked to this company's FOOD!)??

CheesenCrackers... gimme a friggin' break.

It looks bad.

Uh-huh...

I guess we can't totally rule out the possibility of
sabotage from a competitor,

That's something I hadn't thought about, frankly. However, I think
you can still announce a recall in a TIMELY fashion and investigate
behind the scenes whether sabotage was involved while the recall is
happening. This company CHOSE not to do that. Instead, they chose to
SIT on what they knew and let all hell break loose. The problem even
killed something like 9 animals in company taste testing and the
company DIDN'T SAY A WORD about it. I personally find that kind of
behavior criminal, and absolutely abhorrent.

Anyway, by sitting on the problem as long as they apparently did,
they, in effect, "extended" their liability for the deaths and
illnesses that the contaminated food sitting on store shelves had
caused BEFORE they announced the recall. If you ask me, THAT is an
astronomical legal mistake to make. This whole fiasco may end up
costing the company more than they realize right now, if all of the
class action lawsuits that are looming out there are certified and go
to trial.

but we may never know what happened without an
independent investigation and there has been more than enough time to cover
any tracks there might have been. No company should be left to investigate
itself in these matters. When a murderer kills someone, do they have the
murderer investigate the crime? I think there might be trouble getting a
conviction in such a case, just as we see here.

ICAM, Fred.

They have also been talking about tracing the trouble back to wheat gluten
or some other supplied product like that. What if it were simply
unsanitary conditions in their own factory? You would think they'd
investigate that, but did they?

Regardless of whether they did or didn't take into account sanitary
conditions at their own factory as the cause of the problem, it would
be too late to do anything about it now. I'm sure that as soon as
word got out, that factory was sanitized top to bottom, and no one was
ever the wiser about any unsanitary conditions in that company's
plant. The way this whole thing was handled was blown from start to
where we are now (and we are by NO means at the finish line here).

If they did, did they do it properly and
with thoroughness? What might be their motivation for doing so? There's
not much to credit this company.

--
Regards, Fred

--- Cory

On Mar 22, 1:44 am, (Gandalf) wrote:

I hope an animal loving judge throws the book, and printing press it was
made on, at these cat and dog murderers.

The sad thing is, because these are animals and not human beings,
there are very few laws on the books to protect them. Heck, even the
laws that ARE on the books have very flimsy penalties. All you would
have to do to confirm that is look at the penalties handed out in such
cases as Olivia's case
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-5246285.html (is there a better link
to her story somewhere?), or the Noah's Ark shelter case http://
www.noahsark.org/about/ourstory.htm. In the Noah's Ark case, two men
were found guilty of killing 18 cats and injuring many more.

"They were sentenced (on December 19, 1997) to four years in prison,
then suspended to be four years on the youthful offender program,
three years probation, 23 days in county jail and $5-6000 in fines
plus prosecution's court costs, including mandatory psychological
counseling."

(Courtesy of http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/41/IA/US/ )

I can't even find the name(s) of the person(s) who set Olivia on fire
and killed her, much less any information about what punishment THEY
were given for THEIR heinous crime. IIRC, the punishment certainly
did not fit the crime committed.

It's disgusting in this day and age that our animals are still viewed
as pieces of property instead of loving, valuable members of our
families.

--- Cory

On Mar 22, 9:04 am, "Cory" wrote:
Olivia, a black cat who was set afire in 1997 by two Indiana
University students...
I can't even find the name(s) of the person(s) who set Olivia on fire
and killed her, much less any information about what punishment THEY
were given for THEIR heinous crime. IIRC, the punishment certainly
did not fit the crime committed.

It's disgusting in this day and age that our animals are still viewed
as pieces of property instead of loving, valuable members of our
families.

--- Cory

Er... I found out about 'em... and about the disposition of the
case...

"Blake Case and Errett Rouch, both 19 and both freshmen, are accused
of luring Olivia and 3 other cats into a fenced-in yard, dousing them
with an accelerant and setting them on fire.

At his trial, Case told the court he and 3 others, doused 2 opossums,
a raccoon and 2 cats with lighter fluid after catching them in a trap
and set them on fire. He denied any involvement in the torture of
Olivia.

Judge James Harris of Morgan County Circuit Court sentenced Case to a
$100 fine, plus court costs in addition to his indeterminate jail
term. Case could spend up to a year in jail.

Case's jail term was listed as indeterminate because he continued to
have loud obnoxious parties, litter in the street and completely
ignored the Bloomington Police when they were investigating according
Trumpy's owner.

Errett Rouch was also sentenced to 1 year in jail on 5/21/1998."

Courtesy of...

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/21/IN/US/1

--- Cory

Tthe thing we can do is not buy any of their products. There are still many
out there that were not affected. Like all of us in business, if the bottom
line hurts, they hurt.
"Cory" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, Fred wrote:
Cory wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724565/

"The pet food linked to the deaths of 16 animals has shown no signs of
contamination, the manufacturer says, and the company cannot explain
why the cats and dog developed acute kidney failure and died."

So... is it that the company "can't" explain what caused the acute
kidney failure and deaths, or that the company WON'T explain what
caused the acute kidney failure and deaths of these animals (illnesses
deaths, I might add, that have been linked to this company's FOOD!)??

CheesenCrackers... gimme a friggin' break.

It looks bad.

Uh-huh...

I guess we can't totally rule out the possibility of
sabotage from a competitor,

That's something I hadn't thought about, frankly. However, I think
you can still announce a recall in a TIMELY fashion and investigate
behind the scenes whether sabotage was involved while the recall is
happening. This company CHOSE not to do that. Instead, they chose to
SIT on what they knew and let all hell break loose. The problem even
killed something like 9 animals in company taste testing and the
company DIDN'T SAY A WORD about it. I personally find that kind of
behavior criminal, and absolutely abhorrent.

Anyway, by sitting on the problem as long as they apparently did,
they, in effect, "extended" their liability for the deaths and
illnesses that the contaminated food sitting on store shelves had
caused BEFORE they announced the recall. If you ask me, THAT is an
astronomical legal mistake to make. This whole fiasco may end up
costing the company more than they realize right now, if all of the
class action lawsuits that are looming out there are certified and go
to trial.

but we may never know what happened without an
independent investigation and there has been more than enough time to
cover
any tracks there might have been. No company should be left to
investigate
itself in these matters. When a murderer kills someone, do they have the
murderer investigate the crime? I think there might be trouble getting a
conviction in such a case, just as we see here.

ICAM, Fred.

They have also been talking about tracing the trouble back to
wheat gluten
or some other supplied product like that. What if it were simply
unsanitary conditions in their own factory? You would think they'd
investigate that, but did they?

Regardless of whether they did or didn't take into account sanitary
conditions at their own factory as the cause of the problem, it would
be too late to do anything about it now. I'm sure that as soon as
word got out, that factory was sanitized top to bottom, and no one was
ever the wiser about any unsanitary conditions in that company's
plant. The way this whole thing was handled was blown from start to
where we are now (and we are by NO means at the finish line here).

If they did, did they do it properly and
with thoroughness? What might be their motivation for doing so? There's
not much to credit this company.

--
Regards, Fred

--- Cory

Per the ABC evening news ...Charlie Gibson...Wednesday night a report
from a vet who consults a website (sorry, I didn't catch the name) whch
reported 250 animal deaths so far. Tonite, a report from the largest
animal hospital in New York, with 200 in just their facility; the vet
said the numbers could be in the thousands. A number of laboratories
around the country are testing for the source...possibly heavy metals,
or even some insecticide residue on the wheat. Two very good reports,
but no answers yet. And how many people looked up the recalled foods?
The media should have shown the list every day, rather than just give
the website...which was not up to date the first day.

Many of the people I know are older, past 60 and don't have computers.
There should be a printing. I have printed and copied for everyone I know
and the others who hear and ask. My vets office also has lists for people to
check.
"Paulette" wrote in message
...
Per the ABC evening news ...Charlie Gibson...Wednesday night a report
from a vet who consults a website (sorry, I didn't catch the name) whch
reported 250 animal deaths so far. Tonite, a report from the largest
animal hospital in New York, with 200 in just their facility; the vet
said the numbers could be in the thousands. A number of laboratories
around the country are testing for the source...possibly heavy metals,
or even some insecticide residue on the wheat. Two very good reports,
but no answers yet. And how many people looked up the recalled foods?
The media should have shown the list every day, rather than just give
the website...which was not up to date the first day.

I would at least like to see Iams, Hills, some of the others that had
contracts with Menu Foods announce that they're going to start using a
different contract supplier.

Julie

Anyway, by sitting on the problem as long as they apparently did,
they, in effect, "extended" their liability for the deaths and
illnesses that the contaminated food sitting on store shelves had
caused BEFORE they announced the recall. If you ask me, THAT is an
astronomical legal mistake to make. This whole fiasco may end up
costing the company more than they realize right now, if all of the
class action lawsuits that are looming out there are certified and go
to trial.