FDA Says Deadly Dog Treats OK??

by Mary Haight on May 13, 2010

Here’s a report that goes to the heart of the ingredients argument we talked about the other day.  The reporter characterizes this person as a “pet nutrition expert” who advises pet food companies.  Hat tip to Jana at DawgBusiness whose tweet brought this NBC story to my attention. It appears  to be current, but often posts–especially video–will be repeated.  In any case, the information is still germane. 

This serves as another reminder that, of all the dreck that is included in your pet food that affects your pet’s health and lifespan, there’s still more!  You won’t believe the parsing here, with the FDA pretending that a toxic ingredient is not toxic just because it didn’t kill the dogs (they tested it on?) immediately as it did with the cats.  This is an $18 Billion dollar industry.  Shouldn’t customers expect excellence instead of spin?

Pet food foodies really aren’t the wild-eyed nut jobs industry and skeptics charge; there is ample reason for a campaign against this practice and all the other tainted, toxic, diseased animals that are rendered into pet food–against current law by the way.  And fairly soon now, just as with PeTA, many will be saying “who listens to the FDA anymore?”  

Do you have some of these products in your kitchen? Check your labels. And stay tuned.

An interesting aside: I noted some months ago when this revision was first announced by FDA, ASPCA had propylene glycol listed as a less toxic ingredient replacing ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in anti-freeze. But emphasis was placed on the fact that it was still toxic. It’s not there now, but it is an ingredient in some dog foods too…

Related Posts: The Fight Over Pet Food vs Pet Food Safety

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Previous post:

Next post: