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]