Jerky treats leave nearly 600 dogs dead in 'mysterious outbreak', FDA says - Page 8

Beetree, what I've said here is exactly what I mean. Do you really think someone who was involved in environmental protection and water quality wants to get rid of regulatory agencies?

Bee, you think gov is going to solve this? It's been going on for years and they are calling it an " outbreak" ?! Yes, supply and demand, inform people, let the American public make the crap from China go off the shelves by not buying the crap. That is far more effective than expecting the gov to solve any problems....

I certainly don't want to do away with the EPA, is that what you mean? I just think there is a huge misunderstanding about what is actually going on, and what can be done— with finding out the truth about this deadly "mysterious outbreak". The EPA is not the oversight agency for this, but the FDA could be. Voniisk complains about those femur bones, which are likely not considered food either, but a "treat", so who knows what questionable processes are being done to them by the time they make it to TS... which I figure means Tractor Supply? Can't say I've ever seen one in CT! 

Now, personally I don't buy any of those things for my dogs from China or Mexico, either, at this point in time. I don't trust them to be safe. However, we seem to have a large segment of USA population who is not very careful about reading labels and will go buy whatever is cheapest, thinking if it made it to the shelf it must be okay. And their animals will continue to be sickened and some will die. 

The only way to compel a country like China or Mexico, would be with a standard that must be met or they won't be allowed to sell it on our store shelves. Of course, this will affect the whole of the pet food supply chain, even in our own country, and I get the feeling that is worrisome to you all, too? 

While it is impossible to have every single processed food item tested for safe practices, the fact that a representative sample must pass at all times tends to keep most exporters/sellers on the more honest side of things. If they are denied shelf space, they have a funny way of changing their standards of business to comply with ours. FACT. I absolutely disagree with Voniisk's thinking about what matters, and think being legal while doing business does matter. Being illegal should be prosecuted. 
 

Not sure why I am under attack? I am trying to explain that currently there is a definition standing in the way of why the FDA has not had any oversight in this matter. It has nothing to do with a poor or rich state that has Tractor Supply stores. It hasn't been because of caring or not caring. The FDA is asking people for their input on whether the pet food supply chain needs controls because the current definitions of "treats" are not included in their authority. That is how these unsafe and questionable products are making it onto our store shelves, and no one knows what is in them that is causing the sickness and deaths.

Bringing up fracking and the EPA is sort of a red herring, I think, taking away from whether people in the USA want pet food and treats to have certain standards. If we have those standards, and other countries know we are looking for compliance to those standards, I think it will improve the safety of those items for consumption by our USA pets. 

(Certainly no one is working for the government in my family, sorry, if I gave you that impression. What I said was there is expertise in supplying advice for compliance to standards of the FDA to help countries achieve the safety we have come to expect from the minimum standards set.) 

No, I'm not suggesting that the EPA should be the agency involved in this. I'm saying that 1) there are some fundamental issues in how the FDA determines risk (clearly shown in the comparison to how the EPA determines chemical and radiation exposure risk - EPA determines risk over a lifetime of exposure to a chemical, FDA determines risk based on their DIL, a level at which you need to take protective action), and 2) there are also some issues with the FDA not having sufficient funding or resources or power to carry out its tasks. Point #1 was the second article, point #2 was the first article. Because of this, I do not consider FDA inspection to necessarily mean that a food is safe. What I do think is that if we are going to charge an agency with protecting our food supply, etc., that agency should have the funding and resources to do so, and should be more strict in their risk assessment. Basically, even if the FDA is involved in pet food inspection, even with stricter rules, I will still be cautious and aware.

Vonnisk - you're welcome :-)

 

Fracking?? Did you read those articles?? It's ok if you didn't, I'm just really confused now and not sure what we're talking about? Maybe you aren't talking to me....?

edit: (Ohh, now I see vonnisk's post with the fracking image!)