Kim:

Please tone it down a little.

As it turns out, I was incorrect. That's what I get for believing what
I read in a national magazine. So I did take the trouble to look it up
a little further.

But I was not *AS* incorrect as you imply. In the EU (but not the
United States) pet foods must indeed meet human consumption standards,
as described at the below URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#Labeling_and_regulation

However, I take issue with some things you imply in some of your
other comments. For example:

Quote: "... that does NOT equate to the food being safe for human
consumption..."

I did not say that it did. I did not claim ANYTHING was "safe", for
consumption by humans or by anything else. I did not even imply it.

I did (incorrectly) claim "safety standards", but that is not even
remotely the same thing. The USDA and FDA are both completely
overblown, ridiculous bureaucratic organizations and I would not trust
them to certify something "safe" if their own grandmothers' health
depended on it. For example, USDA and FDA have in the past approved
rather outrageous things like bovine growth hormone for milk cows.
Does that mean it's "safe"? Hell, no.

So while I admit my original statement was in error, I will thank you
to not try to make the error worse by putting words in my mouth that
I did not actually write.

In fact, in the United States, while the USDA and FDA ostensibly have
at least some authority, most pet food regulation today is a matter
of State control, not Federal at all. And AAFCO can set all the
regulations they like (if they ever get around to it), but they are
advisory only and have absolutely no actual regulatory authority. I
agree that is a pretty sad situation.

The label "Not for human consumption", however, which you bring up at
least a couple of times, is meaningless in the United States. It is not
required as a matter of regulation at all. It is nothing but a C.Y.A.
statement on the part of pet food companies. It may be true in many or
even the vast majority of cases, but its presence on the package is
generally not required and it is there to prevent lawsuits, nothing
more. It has no factual standard behind it.

No, I do not recommend that people go out and eat pet food, and if you
read carefully, you will see that I did not recommend it in that other
email, either. The context of the email was PET FOOD. And I thought it
was manufactured to higher standards than it is in this country, but I
have not been going around recommending that people eat it.

And you could at least have taken the trouble to spell my name
correctly, considering that you had it right in front of you.

Lonny Eachus

[Posted in FML 7375]