Jerky treats leave nearly 600 dogs dead in 'mysterious outbreak', FDA says - Page 9

Bee, I'm glad for the sake of your dogs, who don't have a say in what you buy for them to eat, that you refrain from buying Chinese products for them. Spread the word and you might help save more dogs from illness. Don't rely on FDA to solve a problem they have been aware of, but done nothing about, for years.

Molly and Jack, I gave your article a quick perusal and I think your point was, that between the federal agencies there is a safety tolerance issue difference. I have no reason to doubt you on this. It just won't change what I think needs to be done to solve the pet food "treat" definition, so as to be able to be recognized by the FDA, as being under their authority. 

Since there is no official authority at the present time, it appears a grass roots boycott of all Chinese and Mexico country pet products is preferred by Joan, voniisk, and yourself? 

Hmmm. The other thing is, if the USA sets the lead for the standard, I am pretty sure it will benefit all pet owners and their dogs in other countries. As a matter of fact, where are the statistics of sickened and dead animals from other countries being blamed on a "mysterious outbreak" of duck, chicken and sweet potato jerky products? That would be interesting to know in a fact seeking sort of way.

Joan, LOL@your sarcasm. Your lack or understanding what the issue really is, maybe isn't so funny. 
 

You seem very narrow minded, bee....see, what you can't understand because of your preconceived notions, is that I'm not being sarcastic at all....I'm absolutely serious. Bt I really didn't think you'd be able t relate.

Hmmm boycott? I guess that is what I do, but it is not because it is from China. Well, more accurately, it is not because of Chinese culture, or people. I also will not eat catfish caught east of I-85 in North Carolina. That doesn't mean I am boycotting good ole NC.

By the way, I don't think I've explicitly stated my opinion on whether or not FDA should or should not have authority over pet food. My opinion? It depends on what level of authority we are talking about, and whether or not there is actual testing involved. I guess it is better than nothing. I'm pretty unimpressed with the FDA, to be honest, on a variety of issues.
 

Nice try Joan, with the projection, as it is you with the narrow and closed mind, that can't wrap your head around the issue for a solution that isn't based on being anti-Chinese. I know how frightening and paranoid of government your "type" is too, and I don't hold it against you, really!

---

Molly and Jack, sure, it isn't perfect, but I see it as a starting point from where it is now, going nowhere, fast. Pointing fingers in hysteria, isn't solving the problem. The shelves are still stocked with these items, yes? Someone else's pet will consume them and become sick or die. Isn't that the real threat by not solving the mystery? Not having a plan with a goal and leader? If not FDA, then who? See, I don't really care which agency, just any ol' one that will fix it. FDA is asking for input, so it would seem they are at least willing to be the "go to" agency for this one.

Giving an agency authority, and therefore resources to address an issue, is really the start, as I see it. How else will this mystery be solved? How else to prevent similar, new ones from showing up?


Side note: Not eating the fish in many of our rivers is just prudent and not a boycott. I agree, those past abuses are not so easily defeated even if it is now, that we care to protect them in ways never before mandated.

I'm not feeling too hysterical, just resigned.... (Now, keep in mind as you read that I worked on environmental issues and studied public health...my cynicism is earned LOL). The OMB already took most of the teeth out of the FSMA by, as far as I am aware, removing the preventive control testing requirements (FSMA is the law being talked about in the NYTimes article). And now, the authority for enforcement of this law-with-no-testing-requirement is being given to the FDA, which is just another agency who's rules and regulations are designed to heavily benefit business, not consumers. It is a band-aid on a very deep wound, but it covers it up enough that people can feel like something is being done. Maybe I am just cynical, it happens. I hope that at least they get and use the new recall powers and that greater care is taken with imports. The point of the FSMA was supposed to be prevention.

Bee, get your family experts to make China stop producing contaminated products...since you seem to imply your family has influence.

I just saw this Joan ^^^ And as a matter of fact, that is exactly what they do for you and so many others here in the USA, for quite a few products. Who knows maybe you are benefiting and have no idea! Pet food however, is not their niche at this time.
 

---

Molly and Jack, the "hysterical" descriptor really wasn't meant for you personally. It was more like a generalized comment for the tone of other opposition posts, to mine. Sorry about that! And while I certainly agree with your assessment that FDA wants to support business, it can not do so without protecting the consumer in some way, at the same time. Without our cynics, the impetus to change and improve would not exist, I think. 

Any way, thanks for the discussion! It sure has been fun. 

 

Bee you are full of doodoo. Anti-Chinese? Go blow, bee. I'm sick of your bs.

Bee,

Awe, don't be such a poor loser Joan! Own your own BS! LOL  It is plain as day!