I pretty much agree with Sandi and yl.  I still think the recall was for "all dates" with the Nutro Max Cat cans because they knew there was cyanuric acid in it from way back, but were using the ChemNutra problem as a handy way out.  Ooops, they were found out.  They didn't want to reveal that CA had been there all along.

I've said many times before that I do not understand how starting to use ChemNutra as a supplier in Nov 2006 would cause Nutro to recall food that could have been made as early as March or April 2004 (three years before the recall was announced, since the cans are good for 3 years and conceivably there could have been 2004 cans still on the shelves.)

Or, if we go by when my cat Cameo started to refuse the Max Cat cans, that occurred in February or March of 2006.  Giving a few months for the cans to get from the plant to where I bought them, that would mean that something changed with the food manufactured in the late fall/early winter of 2005.

In either case, very much pre-ChemNutra.  To me, this shows that the poisoning of pet food has been going on far longer than most people suspect.  And that someone somewhere knows more about it than they will ever admit.

Yl, good point, I too would wonder if some other brand of food made prior to Nov 2006 was tested, what it would show.....

Petslave, I wonder too.  That article that Carol posted about the lady and her vet having food tested that eventually was recalled only mentioned it tested positive for melamine.  I dont know if that was a slip by the reporter and he meant both CA and melamine?  If it truly had only melamine, perhaps that was because suppliers were switched and ChemNutra brought in the melamine and in the process they got rid of the supplier that was bringing in cyanuric acid?  But then that even raises more questions, if an animal was to have been eating cyanuric acid for a long time and that was taken away but then melamine added to the story, it might indicate the cyanuric acid stayed in the body a very long time or that crystals had already formed?  Im just speculating but its all a mystery as Katie said the other night. 

I think that the CA in itself is a problem over time.  Those LD50 numbers just mean "it takes this much to kill 50% of subjects right off the bat."  I believe that toxic effects of CA over time--years--could cause plenty of problems.  For example, I had no idea that brain tumors in cats were so common.  Yet look at all the ones we have heard about just on this forum.  And based on the MSDS for CA, it doesn't sound like such a benign substance to me at all.

Remember that the same scenario--melamine+CA=crystals in the kidneys and death--happened in 2004, too. Supposedly with Mars products in Asia, but I bet it was going on elsewhere too, and probably with other brands.  Again, this was just one that got in radar range, so to speak.

I believe that pets are dying of poisoned food every day, and have been for years.  Most often, it gets blamed on something else, especially in older pets. 

Mmmm....wonder who taught them those tricks?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14467
"Shao Gen, general manager at another chemical maker, the Tengzhou Yinfeng Chemical Company, said cyanuric acid can be added to fish feed, noting it’s not nutritious but can help clean up the fish pond.

He added: “It can probably be added to feed for other animals. Is it legal? There is no law banning the practice. As far as I know, the practice was imported from other countries.”"

---

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/MelamineCyanuricAcid_concept_508.pdf
"Feed / food adulteration
As a follow up to the FDA investigation, it was soon determined that melamine and analogs were present in several lots of feed for animals bred for human consumption (poultry, swine) and for aquaculture fish, thus, introducing the triazines in the human food chain. The available evidence indicates that this contamination was the result of the incorporation of contaminated “scraps” from the pet food industry in the animal feed. These “scraps” contained up to 1,950 ppm of melamine and up to 2,180 ppm of cyanuric acid (10).
This “spillage” of melamine and related compounds in the human food chain prompted the FDA/CFSAN to conduct an Interim Melamine and Analogues Safety/Risk Assessment (10). Based upon the assumption that melamine and its analogs presented an equal toxic potency, a number of intake scenarios, and the levels of triazines determined in edible tissues of animals given contaminated feed, the FDA determined that in this particular case the consumption of such tissues was “very unlikely to pose a human health risk”.
A recently published study provides reasonable evidence that an earlier outbreak of renal failure in dogs in Asia in 2004 was also the result of the contamination of pet food with melamine and cyanuric acid (11). Furthermore, literature data indicate that in Italy, in the period between 1979 and 1987, the adulteration of meat and fish meal with melamine was a widespread practice, with up to 72% of samples testing positive for melamine, and with levels of contamination as high as 1.9% (12).
Considering the facts outlined above, it can be concluded that, on a worldwide scale, the adulteration of feed or feed ingredients with melamine and derivatives has been practiced for at least the past 29 years."

Most of the data in scientific research is short-term aka subchronic. The long-term is what they are missing as far as the damage and cumulative damage to people and pets. We all are aware that if one organ is damaged it impacts the entire health of a person or animal. Kidneys & Livers.. for example..their functions being impaired or failing cause pain, suffering and shorter lifespans.

Which is one reason, as I noted earlier , that I am not quick to discount the LD50, in the scientific data and look more at the impact of usage on the animals tested. If that is short term high dosage, to really think about it being fed year after year or month after month &  consider the long-term varied levels impact and the cumulative effects.

From the article Klondike linked to:
Strategy:
2) Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic studies, design and conduct 28-day and 90-day studies in rats to determine the NOAEL of a combined treatment with melamine and cyanuric acid. Additional studies including an evaluation of systemic toxicity and/or specialized organ systems toxicity after long term (chronic) exposure will be considered following an evaluation of the subchronic study data.

It would be quicker and easier to revise all those state laws allowing nonprotein nitrogen in pet foods and for AAFCO to remove allowing nonprotein nitrogen in pet foods and specialty pet foods at no matter the % or levels. The pet food companies cannot, and have proven they cannot, be trusted to label pet foods with regard to animal health.  It's pretty clear that pet food companies do not change labeling on products to allow consumers to make informed choices.. and, worse than that, they know that nobody is making sure they are honest & ethical.
It's what is not put on the label, and the fact that they don't have a definitive list themselves of what is in the pet foods that we're boxed into a failing system. IMO, The goal of the pfc is first to get our money not the health of our animal. Their product's value/contribution to the health of our animal seems to be the hoax they have perpetrated.. and gotten away with it.

I've always had this nagging fear that I killed Sammi in July 2006. She stopped eating her favorite foods and I bought the pouches and squeezed out the juices. Her right rear leg became paralyzed and she lost control of her kidneys. She was old, but healthy with some arthritis. It only took a few days to kill her 

ps. Katie had referred to the PH levels .. and here's a reference in the same article that Klondike posted:

Although the details of the crystallization mechanism remain unknown at the present time, it is reasonable to assume that the process will be affected by factors such as pH, osmolarity, concentration of particular anions or cations, rate of filtration and physical characteristics of the nephron structure.

No matter how you look at it, nonprotein nitrogen has no, has no, none, zero nutritional value. It's a filler and inflates numbers to make us think it's more nutritional food. It's a lie, it's a hoax and we've seen the impact of it being used by the smug, insulated pet food companies.

Forgot to comment on Offy's post.

I was thinking about that last night, Offy.  Isn't it FRAUD to state that the food contains protein when it really contains nitrogen?

Guess PF companies think pets don't know the difference between meat and fertilizer.

5CatMom
₌^..^₌

Cross posted from "What's Killing Our Pets":

For those who are new to the issue, here's a recent article from Chemical and Engineering News:

May 12, 2008 Volume 86, Number 18 pp. 41-43
 
"Anatomy Of A Pet Food Catastrophe"
"Investigators deployed an array of analytical tools while probing a wave of pet deaths in 2007"

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8619sci3.html

"Even now, research continues into the properties and health effects of the adulterants responsible for the calamity."

5CatMom
₌^..^₌