|
Sandi K
|
 |
« Reply #165 on: July 16, 2008, 09:19:42 PM » |
|
I have read several articles about the testing done for melamine and cyanuric acid in animals and Im thinking there might be a misunderstanding and that there is a difference between cyanuric acid causing no renal affects as compared to causing no health problems. The studies were only related to renal affects as far as I can see including the UC Davis study that was put out in Nov 2007. To my knowledge there hasnt been any long-term studies done. This article at JVDI perhaps is a little clearer and it says "No effect on renal function was observed in cats fed with melamine or cyanuric acid alone.". It does not say no health affects just no effect on renal function.... http://jvdi.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/616Also, if this is in PRE-recall food, how far does this really go back and how long has it been in pet food? And my original questions of how did this get into the food and who was the supplier as this was supposedly prior to ChemNutra, was it a supplier who brought it in and from where, if its not a supplier who was it? Also to add, I personally dont want ca in any pet food regardless if its thought to be harmless or not (which I dont buy). If its an ingredient that is OK to use, then why isnt it listed on the label? Perhaps some of the CEO's from Menu, PFI, etc would be willing to raise their hands to be the guinea pigs to find out if ca does any harm rather than volunteering my pet as one. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 16, 2008, 09:33:38 PM by Sandi K »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JJ
|
|
« Reply #166 on: July 16, 2008, 09:27:23 PM » |
|
Sandi that is the question I'm sure majority of us have as to how far back does this go (before the recalls), how long has it been going on and who was/is supplying the toxic cocktail that when combined in a pets system damages the kidneys and kills the pet?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'Life isn't about how to survive the storm,
But how to dance in the rain.'
|
|
|
|
Poco
|
|
« Reply #167 on: July 17, 2008, 12:04:10 AM » |
|
to know what CA may be doing to our pets...
Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May decrease the appetite.
I wonder if this is the reason that so many cats developed digestive problems afterwards. Repeated irritation of the digestive tract. If the tissues never had a chance to heal before being assaulted again, because the cat ate the food often, it stands to reason that permanent damage could occur. I can see it being legal in farm animal feed since we know Big Ag/USDA, (not all farmers), could care less about the comfort of those animals...but seems like tricky stuff to dose. Maybe that is why it is illegal in pet food? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Offly_irked
Guest
|
|
« Reply #168 on: July 17, 2008, 03:04:51 AM » |
|
Just for the sake of accuracy, the last chemical noted in the Quote in Offy's post, Monosodium Isocyanurate, is not plain Cyanuric Acid. It is an entirely different chemical that combines cyanuric acid with sodium carbonate. Combining chemicals can change the whole picture as far as toxicity.
One of the best reasons to include a combo is that there are ample ingredients (listed & not listed on labels) in pet foods for health damaging consequences : http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_pet_food_ingredients_3.htmlsodium carbonate (1 stars) found in 11% of pet food products analyzed
Neutralizer for rancid fats, similar to lye.The studies are short term and relatively high doses. The amounts found in the Melamine/Cyanuric Acid combos were found to be high dose in several cases per some of the FDA conferences. To not think that level didn't happen with cyanuric acid might be false security. An L-lysine sulfate mixture with 169ppm of cyanuric acid and did not contain melamine. (Canada stopped, livestock feed ingredient) I personally am not very quick to discount on levels or using combination research materials when considering long term/short term health consequences in our pets as there is no definitive list of what actually is in pet foods and ph manipulations. Also, the inconsistency in levels from can to can, batch to batch is at issue too IMO. Long term usage is another factor. How long was the animal exposed to it in pet food? There is also no way to tell the levels long term, as we know they vary. Was the animal fed the same food consistently & for what period? What ingredients were in the foods (we also know that is also inconsistent even if the labels don't change)? Was there a rotation? Did some product have more than another? Factor in the quality of the ingredients used and other combinations formed from heat/processing with other components in the food...add in the health of the animals.. Was this a small kitten fed with it long term, short term? A larger animal? A little damage goes a long way to shorten lifespans and make them more susceptible to other impingements from the foods or environment. What about older animals? Was a smaller amount fed with any consistency/level enough to push them to their last days? We can find a reason to discount anything, all we're left with is having to excercise layman opinion. The pet food companies love that we're in this boat... without alot of funds, we're left digging, trying to connect dots.. and they keep on doing what they want. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 03:43:55 AM by Offy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Carol
|
|
« Reply #169 on: July 17, 2008, 03:39:20 AM » |
|
Let us not forget that no matter what info we have that CA does or does not cause any problems ... it is NOT an approved additive and does NOT belong in our pets' food.....At this point I hope we all agree that answers to who, when, why and where need to be answered and to get this info out to those that can start asking... (I think I know the why)  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
United we stand Divided we fall....
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
|
« Reply #170 on: July 17, 2008, 03:55:02 AM » |
|
Don, that's some good to know info, but I'm not exactly following you.
Aren't we looking for something (or things) that acts like a toxin?
5CatMom
=^..^=
You can think of it as a toxin if it helps you to understand it better that way. A fair analogy might be like something along the lines of eating a hand full of broken glass. The glass itself isn't toxic, but the glass crystals do mechanical damage once they're in the system. It's sort of like that with the melamine and cyanuric acid combination. They circulate through the body without doing any harm to speak of, but inside the kidneys, they react to form tiny, sharp crystals. In the same way the glass crystals would damage your stomach, the melamine cyanurate crystals damage the kidneys. In addition to damaging the kidneys, they can also completely block them, similar to kidney stones. The effect is multiplied in cats because cats concentrate their urine to a much greater degree than other animals. In other words, cat kidneys don't get flushed out as much as other species, so highly concentrated urine equals highly concentrated crystals. I hope that makes sense. The result is deadly enough, but it's more a situation that because of where the crystals form, they cause life threatening physical damage. Don, that's a great explanation. Thanks so much. 5CatMom =^..^ = |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
Offly_irked
Guest
|
|
« Reply #171 on: July 17, 2008, 03:56:50 AM » |
|
If the npn existed in the product (added at their supplier) and not put in the food by the company are they required to disclose the full list of components in the ingredient label? I don't think so. See "natural" flavor, palatants, etc. Also, we know very well that they don't disclose or chose to follow rules except one that are self serving as to their current situation. Add in their myth about not having to change labels... Allowing nonprotein nitrogen in pet foods: http://itchmoforums.com/law-and-politics-about-pets/nonprotein-nitrogen-allowed-by-aafco-t4770.0.html;msg62818#msg6281816-252-075
Expression of guarantees and special requirements — Pet food and specialty pet food containing any added nonprotein nitrogen.
(1) Pet food or specialty pet food and pet food or specialty pet food supplements and concentrates containing crude protein from any form of added nonprotein nitrogen must be labeled as follows:
Crude protein, minimum . . . . . . %
This includes not more than . . . . . . % equivalent crude protein, which is not nutritionally available as protein to (species of animal for which feed is intended).
(2) Pet food or specialty pet food, premixes, concentrates or supplements containing more than one and one-quarter percent crude protein from any form of added nonprotein nitrogen must contain adequate directions for use and a prominent statement on the principal display panel, such as the following:
WARNING: This food must be used only in accordance with directions furnished on the label.
(3) In pet food and specialty pet food, nonprotein nitrogen sources defined in the Association of American Feed Control Officials official publication are acceptable sources of nutrients other than crude protein, as long as the maximum crude protein from all nonprotein nitrogen sources does not exceed one and one-quarter percent of the pet's or specialty pet's total daily ration.
[Statutory Authority: Chapters 15.53 and 34.05 RCW. 03-23-129, § 16-252-075, filed 11/19/03, effective 7/1/04.]
Who has the AAFCO publication that is referred to in #3 and can provide further info? Does the amount of cyanuric acid meet/exceed the allowed amounts? Will they claim the label myth or "misunderstanding" the % as a guideline # as they have in the Hill's/Nutro advertising issues? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 04:07:20 AM by Offy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Carol
|
|
« Reply #172 on: July 17, 2008, 12:06:55 PM » |
|
Obviously this test result has been weighing on my mind since I learned of it and one thing has come to mind is that if the CA is not "an isolated" incident in just these 3 cans (yeah right) then does the results kind of blow the whole investigation of the recall (criminal investigation) out of the water....and does the DA John Wood (I think his name is) want this info? As maybe yes the melamine came from our Chinese friends of Chem Nutra but where did this originate......and who knew about it? And I wonder now what the "new" NPN is being used? Thinking out loud....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
United we stand Divided we fall....
|
|
|
|
3catkidneyfailure
|
|
« Reply #173 on: July 17, 2008, 01:17:26 PM » |
|
Contact phone number for Gene Porter, US Dept. of Justice, Missouri District,
handing ChemNutra indictment, 816-426-3122
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Katie
|
|
« Reply #174 on: July 17, 2008, 04:05:25 PM » |
|
Don,
I'd be interested too, in what the amount of CA was in the food.
We suspect CA is added to inflate protein content. % Protein is a major cost factor of a product.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sandi K
|
|
« Reply #175 on: July 17, 2008, 04:28:59 PM » |
|
Katie, the food is being tested for specific levels, the original test was a composite and that is done to help with costs as it is very expensive. After the initial results are found then you go to levels which provides a more specific breakdown of how much and what batches it was in and that also means additional costs. I guess I am kind of surprised at the lack of interest on this. I kind of thought it was a little more info that helped to answer some questions we had at one point about the ingredients in pet food albeit it also raises questions too. But, to me, the fact that it is in PRE-recall food at all and it has been proven, is kind of important. It potentially shows that this ingredient was being brought in through another source rather than ChemNutra who right now, seems to be the only company taking the heat at least in the legal world. I dont know, I guess Im looking at this a bit differently than others might be. Perhaps folks are just burned out on the subject of tainted food, it can be exhausting and mind-boggling to keep up with all of it.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Katie
|
|
« Reply #176 on: July 17, 2008, 04:46:50 PM » |
|
Sorry Don, my computer hiccuped... before finishing the reply.
Cont:
Protein content on label says: Ex. 24% but we don't know how much is CA, animal meat protein or plant based protein
CA has a pH of 4.0 I couldn't find the pH's of CA salts.
I'm guessing in QC; the companies aren't checking each batch or pkg. So now we have false amounts of protein and an additive that has a pH of 4.0. CA is ionized in an alkaline environment and forms insoluble salts. If we have less real animal protein which is known to create an acid environment. We have chemical additives (minerals, vitamins, etc.) some of which are salts? and high amounts of grains that make for an alkaline environment?
I'm wondering what unknown bound chemicals are forming and if their formation is dependent upon the animals urinary pH at the time. If a pet food company were to assume that all research literature states; dogs and cats have acid urines and the only bound insoluble salts were found in animals with alkaline urine... they'd never be creating a problem? Added to that; pet food companies add salts to act as urinary acidifiers.
Not all animals got sick, some animals were more sick than others, is it possible that the urinary pH of the animal at the time played a role in how sick an animal became or if their renal tubules got so plugged with crystals.
Maybe there is a vet tech here who knows what the allowable variance is in urinary pH. I only know with dogs it can change somewhat over the day and time of meal ingestion but my vet also wants to see the pH around 6.5 to 7.0 from day to day. Dogs are tricky - low pH and high pH lead to various crystals. I don't know if it is the same for cats.
I looked back at my dogs Urines. 2004,2005 and early 2006 it was always 7.0 Late 2006 it was 8.0 (which lead to checking for bacterial infections - negative and something we were going to keep a handle on). 2/27/06 again pH 8.0 and the strange symptoms.(during that time she was continuously on the same commercial food). Taken off her commercial food the end of March, her pH returned to 7.0 on homecooked meals (44/26/30) now she runs a pH of 6 to 6.5 on 52/23/25. This is the reason why I asked if anyone knew if urinary pH was critical to crystal formation.
It's been awhile since my Chemistry days... so I'm probably off in left field and the above is just rambling. But I still hope Nutro is suffering gastric distress!
Katie
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Katie
|
|
« Reply #177 on: July 17, 2008, 04:55:29 PM » |
|
Sandi K,
I'm interested too. Because I suspect it's been with us awhile - and I too suspect Chem Nutra isn't the only problem. It worries me and also has peaked my interest with it showing up pre- recall.
My dog survived, and I'm really happy for that; but the recall, a pet who almost didn't make it, so many that did die,the pet food company lies and cover - ups, the mistrust; it's just something I have a really hard time letting go of. It's like reading a mystery book and finding someone tore out the pages with the end. I hate being left up in the air!
Katie
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
catbird
Guest
|
|
« Reply #178 on: July 17, 2008, 05:52:53 PM » |
|
From the beginning I've said that ChemNutra were just the ones who got caught. I am no longer so naive as to believe they were the only ones.
A person has only to read the posts here to know that there is stuff in a lot of pet foods that is not on the labels, and has no business being there. Lots of bad stuff.
I believe deliberate contamination was going on long before the 2007 "recall period", and continues to this day. As evidence of the former, autopsies on animals who died from the 2004 Asia recalls showed the characteristic signs of melamine/CA crystals, not aflatoxin poisoning as was first stated. (There is a thread with several links on this forum.) For the latter, look at some recent posts here or at ConsumerAffairs about pets eating food and dying.
In a way, the whole "2007 pet food recall" scandal may have been a cut-your-losses risk management scheme. Make ChemNutra the bad guys and let them take the fall. Let us all believe that once this was uncovered, the problem was fixed and all was hunky-dory again in Petfoodland.
Yeah, right. Anybody want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PFR07PS
|
|
« Reply #179 on: July 17, 2008, 07:40:05 PM » |
|
I guess I am kind of surprised at the lack of interest on this. I kind of thought it was a little more info that helped to answer some questions we had at one point about the ingredients in pet food albeit it also raises questions too. But, to me, the fact that it is in PRE-recall food at all and it has been proven, is kind of important. It potentially shows that this ingredient was being brought in through another source rather than ChemNutra
Sandi, it is important that it was detected in pre-recall food. I think most of us already believed that, even without the proof. I certainly did. My dogs were sickened in January, 2007. I did not test that brand until after the March recall. Offy's question is interesting: "Does the amount of cyanuric acid meet/exceed the allowed amounts?" A rep from the FDA told me that cyanuric acid (and melamine) was NOT approved for use as an ingredient in pet food. They also said it would be considered "adulteration" of product if used. So, if cyanuric acid is detected, I would think the FDA would be interested in this "adulteration" of product. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
