On Mar 31, 12:36 pm, Julia Altshuler wrote:
Lynne wrote:
What's really scary to me is that the FDA is saying the level of melamine
found in the food doesn't explain the symptoms they are seeing in pets who
consumed it.

Tip of the iceberg?

Here's what I don't understand: Why aren't more dogs and cats sick? I
know that sounds horribly callous so let me explain myself before
everyone jumps down my throat. The recall was/is huge. The number of
pets exposed to possibly tainted pet food has to be huge. Yet I'm
hearing very relatively few reports of sick or dying pets. Believe me,
I think that's a good thing, but it doesn't make sense. When you look
at the numbers, it seems like there should be more. In my neighborhood,
all the dogs and cats are fine. You have reports of veterinarians
working overtime testing animals, but they're all fine. It doesn't seem
possible that the food isn't really tainted since some animals have died
from poisoning. What explains the fact that so many exposed animals
haven't gotten sick?

(How was your trip, and would you email me privately your notes on
airport recordings?)

--Lia

What numbers are you basing this on? The "official" count, which is
really just the animals in Menu's feeding test? The Banfield numbers,
who have hundreds of cases, and project a number of several thousand
nationwide based on their own numbers? The numbers from the Veterinary
Information Network--who say that only 10-20% of their members have
reported in, but nevertheless they have reports of 1,000 sick animals,
and project that it could easily be ten times that? The Pet Connection
numbers?

There may not have been the same amount of contaminant in every can or
pouch. Given the way things normally work in manufacturing, there
probably wasn't an abrupt shift, on the manufacturing end, from wheat
gluten from one supplier to wheat gluten from another supplier.
Animals will have had different amounts of the tainted food--anything
from all their meals to little treats. And they'll have had different
levels of sensitivity. Some animals ate the food, eagerly or
reluctantly. Some refused it after a few bites, some refused it based
on smell alone. And different people will have had different reactions
to a pet suddenly refusing its food for no reason apparent to the
human, up to and including the Canadian woman who ate some of it
herself to encourage her dog to eat it. (It worked, and they're both
seriously ill.)

And, again, we really don't know what the numbers are. Lots of vets
are working overtime testing lots of animals--and a lot of them are
fine, but a lot of them aren't. There are a lot of very sick or dead
pets out there.

Lis