FDA/CVM study

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ann Martin - 04 Sep 2003 12:31 GMT

>>According to the official FDA website,Miss-Leading Martin is stating

*false*
information.<<

The person, writing the above, quoted from the FDA/CVM
study on dog and cat DNA, which had nothing to do with the statement
in a letter I received from Christine Richmond, FDA/CVM, "In
recognizing the disposal of a large number of unwanted pets in this
country, CVM has not acted to specifically prohibit the rendering of
pets. However, that is not to say that the practice of using this
material in pet food is condoned by the CVM." They don't condone it
yet they have taken no steps to prohibit this practice. There is are
no regulations which prohibit the use of rendered companion animals in
pet foods.

As for posting "false" information I suggest that the person writing
this should get their information straight before posting their
innuendoes.

Ann

Reply to this Message

PawsForThought - 04 Sep 2003 13:55 GMT

>From: anmartin1@rogers.com (Ann Martin)

>>>According to the official FDA website,Miss-Leading Martin is stating
>*false*
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>this should get their information straight before posting their
>innuendoes.

Sounds like the person must be Phil P. who is full of more innuendos than
anyone. Whenever he can't dispute your information, or disagrees with someone,
he resorts to name calling. IMO, that is no way to conduct a discussion.

Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

Reply to this Message

Phil P. - 04 Sep 2003 14:13 GMT

> >From: anmartin1@rogers.com (Ann Martin)
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Sounds like the person must be Phil P. who is full of more innuendos than
> anyone. Whenever he can't dispute your information,

Knock, knock! I *did* dispute and debunk Mis-Leading Martin's information
with *facts* from the FDA's *official*.website! LOL!

Got a real serious reading comprehension problem, don't you? Or are you
just in serious denial?

Reply to this Message

Diane L. Schirf - 04 Sep 2003 14:19 GMT

> Sounds like the person must be Phil P. who is full of more innuendos than
> anyone. Whenever he can't dispute your information, or disagrees with
> someone,
> he resorts to name calling. IMO, that is no way to conduct a discussion.

He resorted to quoting the FDA site.

It's funny how the people who accuse others of "name calling" are the
first to resort to it.

Odd.

Signature

http://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/
http://slywy.diaryland.com/

Reply to this Message

GAUBSTER2 - 04 Sep 2003 16:23 GMT

>Sounds like the person must be Phil P. who is full of more innuendos than
>anyone. Whenever he can't dispute your information, or disagrees with
>someone,
>he resorts to name calling. IMO, that is no way to conduct a discussion.
>
>Lauren

Lauren, you bring nothing to this discussion..why even bother? Sounds to me
like you are trying to impugn PhilP instead. Makes you guilty of what you
accuse others of doing. If you want to have a mutual admiration society w/ Ann
Martin, go do it somewhere else--private email perhaps?

Reply to this Message

Ann Martin - 04 Sep 2003 20:35 GMT

darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) wrote

>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> anyone. Whenever he can't dispute your information, or disagrees with someone,
> he resorts to name calling. IMO, that is no way to conduct a discussion.

You're right Lauren, this person has no idea how to have a discussion
and that is why I would not waste my time with even viewing his posts.
He keeps referring to the FDA/CVM study and what I have posted twice
is the letter from the FDA/CVM which has nothing to do with the study.
I suggest that people contact the FDA/CVM and also the USDA/FSIS and
AAFCO and ask them personally if (1) who regulates the ingredients
used in pet foods. (2) If it is illegal to render companion animals
for use in pet foods. (3) If the raw materials are ever tested to
ascertain the sources of ingredients. (4) If these ingredients are
ever tested, by anyone, for resides of drugs, hormones and other
deleterious substances. If anyone needs an e-mail number for anyone
of these acencies I'll be pleased to provide it including the e-mails
for the various state agencies that some people purport oversee the
ingredients used in commercial pet foods. At least if they contact
these agencies they will see for themselves how well regulated this
industry actually is. Lauren, as you know I have asked these people
who dispute my findings to show us otherwise and so far they have
chosen not to do so and resort to the name calling .... real
professional.

Ann

Reply to this Message

Phil P. - 04 Sep 2003 21:34 GMT

> You're right Lauren, this person has no idea how to have a discussion

It is kinda difficult to have a discussion with a manipulator, insinuator
and scaremonger like you, but since I had some practice with your
parrot-prot?g?, I think I did a pretty good job so far...

Lauren, as you know I have asked these people

> who dispute my findings to show us otherwise

I have! *Twice*. Wanna try for three times? LOL!

Reply to this Message

Phil P. - 04 Sep 2003 14:04 GMT

> >>According to the official FDA website,Miss-Leading Martin is stating
> *false*
> information.<<

> The person, writing the above, quoted from the FDA/CVM
> study on dog and cat DNA, which had nothing to do with the statement
> in a letter I received from Christine Richmond, FDA/CVM,

I'm not interested in another one of your stories... You made the
statement:

"I've quote from letter received from the FDA/CVM as to

> their knowledge that pets ARE used in commercial pet foods"

The *offical* FDA website states "

"The results demonstrated a complete absence of material that would have
been derived from euthanized dogs or cats. "

That *strongly* suggests cats and dogs are *not* used in pet foods as you
stated....... especially since the test could detect 5 lbs in *50 tons* of
finished feed!

"CVM scientists, as part of their investigation, developed a test to detect
dog and cat DNA in the protein of the dog food. All samples from the most
recent dog food survey (2000) that tested positive for pentobarbital, as
well as a subset of samples that tested negative, were examined for the
presence of remains derived from dogs or cats. The results demonstrated a
complete absence of material that would have been derived from euthanized
dogs or cats. The sensitivity of this method is 0.005% on a weight/weight
basis; that is, the method can detect a minimum of 5 pounds of rendered
remains in 50 tons of finished feed. Presently, it is assumed that the
pentobarbital residues are entering pet foods from euthanized, rendered
cattle or even horses."
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/DFreport.htm

> As for posting "false" information I suggest that the person writing
> this should get their information straight before posting their
> innuendoes.

Innuendo is *your* thing, Mis-Leading Martin. Not mine. There was no
innuendo or ambiguity to my statement! I was crystal clear when I said:

"According to the official FDA website,Miss-Leading Martin is stating
*false* information."

Until the FDA publishes a retraction or revision of the above report on
their *official* website that can be *verified* that clearly states cats and
dogs are used in pet foods, my statement *stands*: Is that clear enough for
you?

Reply to this Message

GAUBSTER2 - 04 Sep 2003 16:21 GMT

>in a letter I received from Christine Richmond, FDA/CVM, "In
>recognizing the disposal of a large number of unwanted pets in this
>country, CVM has not acted to specifically prohibit the rendering of
>pets.

This is broadly stated...how are the large number of pets being disposed? Not
in pet foods, that's for sure! Most likely in other manners, such as in
fertilizer.

>As for posting "false" information I suggest that the person writing
>this should get their information straight before posting their
>innuendoes.

Ann, this is absolutely delicious! You chide others for doing exactly what YOU
do!

Reply to this Message