BW- Its not just you ! Some days I can do it & understand it & others I wonder how many brain cells I've lost ! ;DJust go at it on a non super busy day,& you will do better at understanding it. That of course assumes that you ever have a non super busy day.

I agree 3cat and I would say, even if someone doesnt have any suggestions to send in, even just a note encouraging them to implement this would be helpful.  I think the more pet owners they hear from the better just in case the PFI decides they need to lobby against this.  I dont have any suggestions for them on this form but I am going to write them and tell them why I think its so important to have this.  In our case we suspsected something wrong with our KiKi's food and we began making calls to the pet food company as early as Dec 06 and Jan 2007.  If there had been a central warning place to report these things, I have no doubt that other pet parents would have also been noticing something wrong and used a system like this and perhaps many pet deaths and illnesses could have been avoided. 

Im just bumping this up as a reminder for people to submit their comments on this, for everyone that is concerned about pet food safety, if possible, please comment to them, even if its just to say you support this early warning system...or dont.

3Cat, I probably wasnt clear.  I have no idea if the reports submitted by pet owners to this early warning system will be available for the public to see, my guess is no.  I was referring to the docket and the comments being submitted.  You can view all the comments they have received to date so far on the actual early warning system proposal docket.  One of the comments by AVMA caught my attention:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?D=FDA-2008-N-0546-0005.1

"The AVMA recommends that FDA gain and retain contact information from all individuals who submit adverse event reports.  We contend that false reports could be submitted to FDA more readily if individual contact information is not required for report submission.  We assert that such contact information is essential, so that FDA is able to follow-up with reporting individuals and to verify reported information if the FDA has any questions or concerns regarding an individual report."

and then right below that they put another statement " We also assert that contact anonymity should not be an option for individuals submitting adverse event reports, as we believe the numbers of false reports would increase if individual contact information is not a requirement for reporting." 

So out of all the things they could comment on they have mentioned obtaining contact information of the person submitting the report twice out of a concern they have of false reports?  The rough draft form provided by FDA clearly shows that whoever submits a report has to give name, address, and various other pieces of contact information.  I find it hard to believe that this system would be over-run with people filing false reports so why is AVMA so concerned about this enough to mention it twice?  Once again it just seems that certain parties are more concerned about those sneaky over the top pet owners than they are of the true culprit and cause of even having to have this system in the first place and that is the pet food companies.  Such large distrust and suspicion of pet owners but not the pet food companies.  sigh.....

Nancy Cook of the PFI on January 29, 2010:

on page 3:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2008-N-0546

PFI pdf format file:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a875e2

Outrageous if you read it.

Especially loved the inference that cat vomitting after eating is a stress response many times unrelated to bad pet food ingredients.
Many times it is related to lousy pet food ingredients, too, and manufacturers should be responsible for the needed care and treatment.
My 3 chronic renal failure kitties are faking their bloodwork and inability to concentrate urine.

Public Law 110-85 announcing this early warning system was signed in September 2007 by then President Bush. Gee, it must take
a lot longer to get ready.

The wet and dry pet food manufacturers don't want to be lumped with the pet treat manufacturers as far as food safety. Gee, I wonder
why? But those manufacturers, like Del Monte, are happy to get the profits. Give me a break.

You know, these guys just amaze me.  Part of the reason this early warning system is even having to be done is because of food problems that arent getting caught or relayed when known about, this is a result of the industry's behavior and the pet owners demanding change. They make it sound that if this form isnt filled out in full it should be considered incomplete but yet when you do call a pet food company, they dont ask even close to the amount of questions that are being asked on this form.  And they want pet owners to contact them first as if that is such a novel idea....give me a break.  I called our pet food company in late 2006/early 2007 and so have many other people in just 2009 alone and alot of good that did.  All you get as a response is they have had no other reports of problems.  And then they say " FDA should consider providing the company of concern with information about the submitter so that multiple filings and other information could be made available if needed."  Well I propose the same thing be done in reverse, the pet food companies should have to provide FDA with copies of all the reports of problems they receive from pet owners.  And I dont feel FDA should be releasing any information about someone who is submitting a report to any pet food company without that person's permission.  I would be concerned the company could potentially attempt to contact the person and intimidate them in some fashion..... from where I sit these guys are just trying to pull the wool over FDA's eyes and make it appear they are being victimized. They are worried about multiple submissions from pet owners, in reality how many would really do that?  Anyone I know that has had a sick pet from what they feel is a pet food problem, etc, have contacted the company first and got little to no help or concern so ended up contacting FDA.  This is a bunch of dog-doo.  

Let's look back at when Justice was continually run over by a steamroller:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2007cv21221/295436/430/0.pdf

Starting on page 22, you'll see the attorneys for the PFC's, most of whom are PFI Members-Mars, Menu Foods, Hill's, Del Monte, Nestle Purina, Natura, Iams.

Mounting a defense such as this cost each company a goodly sum of $. Page 15 covers what was expected of the plaintiffs:

"Please identify yourself, including your full name and any prior names used, all electronic identities used at any time during the last five (5) years (including e-mail addresses, user names or screen names), all addresses at which you have lived for the last ten (10) years, your date of birth and your drivers' license number and state of issuance.

"Please identify each website or electronic community (including weblogs, internet bulletin boards, and listservs) which you have maintained or to which you have contributed during the past five (5) years, and for each, state the registered name you used, the nature of the website or electronic community, the internet address (URL), and the date or period of time during which you maintained or contributed to it."

A way to violate the privacy of each plaintiff who wished to continue with his/her lawsuit.  It seems that the PFCs have decided to try doing the same thing but not incur such awful legal costs--by expecting the GOVERNMENT to do it for them.

Every type of government form I've ever had to deal with had to list the agencies and entities the information you were providing might be shared with.  They were other Federal agencies, state agencies and various other local agencies of government; NONE of them were private industries or their lobbying group(s).

If applicable, a company in private industry would be made aware of your complaint, but your personal information would not be shared with them.

There has to be something morally wrong with expecting the Federal Government to revive the old Soviet Union KGB in the name of providing the PFCs with a "hit list", even if you don't care about pet food or have a pet. 

It has the potential to deter persons with legitimate complaints from reporting them due to the fact that their personal information will be passed along to the company who makes the product(s) they are at issue with, so it tips the playing field in favor of industry and against the consumer. 

FDA is meant to serve BOTH consumers and industry on a level playing field.  We would now have an agency who is attempting to protect us all not receiving reports which are necessary to do that because of the PFI "suggestions".

The other wrong would be the use of Federal Government employees whose agencies and positions are taxpayer-funded to do the "legwork" of the private industry's lobby group.  There have been enough budget issues with programs curtailed or cut back in this time of great need to cry, "shame on you!" to PFI and its members who are trying to get their research done with the tax dollars of EVERY taxpayer.

If this is implemented, this time Justice won't just be continually steamrollered, she will be constantly gang-r---d.