The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5

Janet

"Steve Wertz" > wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 06:12:31 -0600, Janet B. wrote:
>
>> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
>
> So when do the lawsuits start? Killing pets, misrepresenting
> their products (protein content, at least). And I'm sure there's
> pain and suffering, if not punitive damages.

But who is going to get sued? The primary perpetrators are in China, and the
companies in the USA are only secondary players. So far, the only responsible
party in the USA is possibly Menu Foods, and only because they delayed recalling
their pet food.

I don't see that there is a lot of leverage here in the USA to bring anyone to
justice. About the only thing that can be done is to threaten to ban certain
imports. I heard one commentary on that radio this morning that said if we
restricted imports from China, we'd starve, as we've become so dependant on
them.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

On Tue, 1 May 2007 09:21:45 -0500, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>So when do the lawsuits start?

Good luck suing China.

--
Zilbandy

"Janet B." wrote:
>
> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>
> Janet

Hmmm, and I seem to recall some buffoon attacking me for stating back
when the whole pet food fiasco started that the contamination would be
found in human food in short order. Once again I've been proven correct.

Pete C.

"Janet B." > wrote in message
...
> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5

Here's the audio that goes with the FDA's latest press release on the tainted
food:

http://tinyurl.com/2v74am

I don't know where they got it from, perhaps the Chinese government? ;-)

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

Janet B. wrote:
> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>
> Janet

Good thing I really don't care for chicken, eh?

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> Janet B. wrote:
>> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
>> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>>
>> Janet
>
> Good thing I really don't care for chicken, eh?
>
>
Well, they fed the stuff to hogs last week -- give them time and it will be
fed to all creatures and then used as fertilizer for our food plants. It
seems to me that some blame should be put on US companies that sold
rejected/contaminated pet food for other animals to consume. It doesn't
make sense to me that if it is poisonous to cats and dogs because of
extraneous poisonous material that it is o.k. to feed to animals that are
part of the human food chain.
Janet

Pete C. wrote:
> "Janet B." wrote:
>> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
>> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>>
>> Janet
>
> Hmmm, and I seem to recall some buffoon attacking me for stating back
> when the whole pet food fiasco started that the contamination would be
> found in human food in short order. Once again I've been proven correct.
>
> Pete C.


You're a little premature. There's no evidence that the contamination
has been found in human food -- the chickens and pigs filter it out. I
assume the FDA and USDA are still investigating, and eventually may find
contaminated human food -- either direct contamination, or maybe the
stuff *does* accumulate in muscle (or eggs, or milk, or whatever.) But
we are not there yet. HTH :-)

Bob

Janet B. wrote:
> ...It doesn't
> make sense to me that if it is poisonous to cats and dogs because of
> extraneous poisonous material that it is o.k. to feed to animals that are
> part of the human food chain.
> Janet
>


"The solution to pollution is dilution!" (this is one of the rare cases
where that actually works)

Best regards,
Bob

"Janet B." wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Janet B. wrote:
> >> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
> >>
> >> Janet
> >
> > Good thing I really don't care for chicken, eh?
> >
> >
> Well, they fed the stuff to hogs last week -- give them time and it will be
> fed to all creatures and then used as fertilizer for our food plants. It
> seems to me that some blame should be put on US companies that sold
> rejected/contaminated pet food for other animals to consume. It doesn't
> make sense to me that if it is poisonous to cats and dogs because of
> extraneous poisonous material that it is o.k. to feed to animals that are
> part of the human food chain.
> Janet

I don't believe it was a case of the recalled contaminated pet food
being resold for animal feed, I think it was the waste from those
original production runs i.e. broken kibble that fell through the QC
grading screen and leftover material from extruder cleaning that were
sold for animal feed.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt a company facing legal headaches
from a recall would be dumb enough to resell the recalled product, nor
would a farm be dumb enough to purchase the recalled product.

zxcvbob > wrote:

>You're a little premature. There's no evidence that the contamination
>has been found in human food -- the chickens and pigs filter it out.

Not at all true. Look up the wikipedia entry for melamine, in
particular the section on toxicity.

As of yesterday, FDA estimated 45 humans have eaten contaminated
product. The government has also advised hospitals and emergency
rooms to be on the lookout for unusual rates of high readings
on kidney function tests.

Steve

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
> "Janet B." wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Janet B. wrote:
>> >> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>> >>
>> >> Janet
>> >
>> > Good thing I really don't care for chicken, eh?
>> >
>> >
>> Well, they fed the stuff to hogs last week -- give them time and it will
>> be
>> fed to all creatures and then used as fertilizer for our food plants. It
>> seems to me that some blame should be put on US companies that sold
>> rejected/contaminated pet food for other animals to consume. It doesn't
>> make sense to me that if it is poisonous to cats and dogs because of
>> extraneous poisonous material that it is o.k. to feed to animals that are
>> part of the human food chain.
>> Janet
>
> I don't believe it was a case of the recalled contaminated pet food
> being resold for animal feed, I think it was the waste from those
> original production runs i.e. broken kibble that fell through the QC
> grading screen and leftover material from extruder cleaning that were
> sold for animal feed.
>
> I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt a company facing legal headaches
> from a recall would be dumb enough to resell the recalled product, nor
> would a farm be dumb enough to purchase the recalled product.

You could be right. Some of the articles were less than clear on this
issue.
Janet

Janet B. wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Janet B. wrote:
>>> The chickens that ate the food are already in the human food chain
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2m6oh5
>>>
>>> Janet
>>
>> Good thing I really don't care for chicken, eh?
>>
>>
> Well, they fed the stuff to hogs last week -- give them time and it
> will be fed to all creatures and then used as fertilizer for our food
> plants.

Okay, I guess you failed to see my <wink>.

It seems to me that some blame should be put on US companies
> that sold rejected/contaminated pet food for other animals to
> consume. It doesn't make sense to me that if it is poisonous to cats
> and dogs because of extraneous poisonous material that it is o.k. to
> feed to animals that are part of the human food chain.
> Janet

I sincerely doubt that happened. What kind of idiot would sell tainted
recalled products as chicken & pork feed? What kind of idiot farmer would
buy it?

I'm not a biologist but I know human physiology is vastly different from
that of cats and dogs. Karen AKA Kajikit brought this up in a cat
newsgroup. Dogs can't eat chocolate without the possibility of becoming
very ill. People eat chocolate and it doesn't have that affect. People eat
onions and garlic and no harm, no foul (or fowl, if you prefer the play on
words!) but a lot of other mammals can't eat these things without
encountering adverse health affects.

Never forget, the "news" media thrives on fear-mongering and keeping the
story alive.

Jill

Steve Pope wrote:
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> You're a little premature. There's no evidence that the contamination
>> has been found in human food -- the chickens and pigs filter it out.
>
> Not at all true. Look up the wikipedia entry for melamine, in
> particular the section on toxicity.
>
> As of yesterday, FDA estimated 45 humans have eaten contaminated
> product. The government has also advised hospitals and emergency
> rooms to be on the lookout for unusual rates of high readings
> on kidney function tests.
>
> Steve


I didn't see anything at the Wikipedia entry that contradicted what I
said. I like Wikipedia, but I also do not consider it to be a reliable
single source of information -- and Wikipedia even had a disclaimer on
the section that you referenced that it was a developing story and
changing rapidly (and therefore not yet reliable even by Wikipedia's
standards)

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> zxcvbob > wrote:

>>> You're a little premature. There's no evidence that the contamination
>>> has been found in human food -- the chickens and pigs filter it out.

>> Not at all true. Look up the wikipedia entry for melamine, in
>> particular the section on toxicity.

>I didn't see anything at the Wikipedia entry that contradicted what I
>said.

Your statement that "the chickens and pigs filter it out" (what
is your source for that, anyway?) is contradicted by the Wikipedia
statement "a "spoke-like crystal" had been found in contaminated rice
protein concentrate and the tissues and urine of affected animals. The
crystal serves as a biomarker for contamination and is roughly
30% melamine."

>I like Wikipedia, but I also do not consider it to be a reliable
>single source of information -- and Wikipedia even had a disclaimer on
>the section that you referenced that it was a developing story and
>changing rapidly (and therefore not yet reliable even by Wikipedia's
>standards)

Fine, but do you have any source at all for your "filter it out"
statement?

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>>>> You're a little premature. There's no evidence that the contamination
>>>> has been found in human food -- the chickens and pigs filter it out.
>
>>> Not at all true. Look up the wikipedia entry for melamine, in
>>> particular the section on toxicity.
>
>> I didn't see anything at the Wikipedia entry that contradicted what I
>> said.
>
> Your statement that "the chickens and pigs filter it out" (what
> is your source for that, anyway?) is contradicted by the Wikipedia
> statement "a "spoke-like crystal" had been found in contaminated rice
> protein concentrate and the tissues and urine of affected animals. The
> crystal serves as a biomarker for contamination and is roughly
> 30% melamine."
>
>> I like Wikipedia, but I also do not consider it to be a reliable
>> single source of information -- and Wikipedia even had a disclaimer on
>> the section that you referenced that it was a developing story and
>> changing rapidly (and therefore not yet reliable even by Wikipedia's
>> standards)
>
> Fine, but do you have any source at all for your "filter it out"
> statement?
>
> Steve


I admitted from the beginning that my argument was weak on that point.

The fact that it's being found in the kidneys of affected animals means
it's being filtered out.

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Fine, but do you have any source at all for your "filter it out"
>> statement?

>I admitted from the beginning that my argument was weak on that point.
>
>The fact that it's being found in the kidneys of affected animals means
>it's being filtered out.

It certainly means that some of it is being filtered out.

But if it's also found "in the tissues" of the animals, maybe
not all of it is getting filtered out.

In any case I see no reason to assume these melamine animals
are safe to eat.

Steve