» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


In God we trust; all others need much further scrutiny (4/6/2007)

NOTE: This follows hundreds of pet deaths in the U.S. due to contaminated pet food.

EXTRACT: You might ask where the minds of the FDA and USDA were during this mind-numbing debacle - up the proverbial rectums of the powers that be. This should have proved to the American voters that something is very wrong in Washington. We are going to have to hold someone's feet to the fire in order for our world as we once knew it to continue.

---

In God we trust; all others need much further scrutiny
B.J. Darnell The Catoosa County News (Georgia, USA), 30 May 2007
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=724&NewsID=810548&CategoryID=16783&on=1

In April, South Africa warned pet owners over the dumping of melamine contaminated pet food because it might cause environmental damage or poison animals and people.

The South African Veterinary Association (SAVA) urged pet owners to return all possibly contaminated food to their vets so that Royal Police Corps could incinerate it, since dumping it in the trash bin could expose the environment to the toxin, which could lead to human and or animal exposure.

He said SAVA had asked the Pet Food Institute (PFI) to require its members, who may have used the contaminated corn gluten, or other suspect contaminated material, regardless of the presumed level of melamine, to immediately recall the products. These should only be made available for sale once the presence of melamine had been eliminated by independent testing.

SAVA will make the manufacturer or brand known to its members, so they can advise the public on food that may not be safe if the manufacturers do not comply.

SAVA has now declared melamine an officially recognized toxin, capable of inducing serious clinical disease, and would insist that all pet food be tested.

For a country that many believe takes a back seat to American technology they certainly are ahead of us on this subject. Have you heard or read that we are to take these precautions with "tainted pet foods?"

Did our "watchdogs" drop the ball again. Oh! Yes, it appeared in hog, poultry and fish feed within weeks of the recalls. You might ask where the minds of the FDA and USDA were during this mind-numbing debacle - up the proverbial rectums of the powers that be. This should have proved to the American voters that something is very wrong in Washington. We are going to have to hold someone's feet to the fire in order for our world as we once knew it to continue.

As of this date, the FDA has not stated whether or not the wheat is GMO (genetically modified). Legal counsel for ChemNutra, the company that imported the wheat gluten, stated that the wheat gluten "was not supposed to be (genetically modified) but that ChemNutra did not specify non-GMO on its order." So in fact it may well have received a genetically engineered product. Thus far, GMO wheat has been frowned upon for human consumption in North America, but the FDA does not regulate its presence in pet food or animal feed. Furthermore, as with human products, genetically engineered foods do not have to declare their "altered" status on North American labels.

Does the government think the American people are stupid? They expect us to believe their explanations and propaganda? They have known the truth from the start, and have taken their time to cover the backsides of those concerned! The truth is out there ó and we deserve to know the details! Is it a surprise that most people tend to be very suspicious of our government?

The FDA doesn't have enough of an incentive to fix this. Pressure the government, pressure the FDA, and most importantly, vote with your wallets, because that's the language that all of the players in the U.S. and China understand.

One thing I wondered: Why aren't the "brands" suing the plants that added contaminated product under Strict Liability or Product Liability? Do they have some kind of indemnity clause in their contracts with each other?

Product Liability: Under this doctrine, liability is imposed upon the manufacturer or seller of goods for harm caused by a defect in the goods, regardless of whether the defect resulted from negligence on the part of the seller or manufacturer.

Strict Liability: This doctrine holds that a person injured by the activity of someone else may recover damages without having to prove any intentional act or negligence, if the activity that led to the harm was extra hazardous.

Remember folks, it is the American way to allow our wallets to do the talking, both at the pet food counter and in contributions to political candidates. It is getting very important that we think long and strong on the people we send to represent us. They need to represent us, not the party. After all, that is our right! Maybe our money should say "in God We Trust, all others need much further scrutiny." Oops! Politically incorrect statement. Sorry, I keep thinking of all the murdered pets in America.

BJ Darnell is owner and operator of a local professional kennel and has been recognized nationally for her achievements in the kennel industry. She can be reached at (706) 866-8228 or by e-mail at [email protected]

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive