Talk:2007 pet food recalls

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 pet food recalls article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Veterinary medicine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk Archives[edit]

For a previous article on the subject, see /Version1
For discussion of said previous article, see /Version1/Archive 1
For discussion about the two versions, see /Version1/Archive 2
For archived discussion of content for the current article see /Archive 1

Other Chinese exported ingredients poisoning scandals[edit]

Today's big NYT story involves use of diethylene glycol in medicine and poisonings in Panama From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine

If people are eager to start an article on dangerous chinese exported ingredients, more generally, one could do worse than to start with this topic and a summary of some of the info from this article. Given the recent developments tying the chemical composition of the "melamine scrap" in China directly to the chemical composition of the crystals found in contaminated pet food and affected animals, I no longer think it makes any sense to split apart the search for the cause of the illnesses section from the search for the source of the contamination section. However, as there has been little proven human impact in this instance, yet, and much human impact in the diethylene glycol case, that would be a natural place to focus on human impact.

If anyone does decide to do this, this diary drom Daily Kos and its bajillion comments may serve as a useful source to find some additional material. China Exports Poisoned Medicine While FDA Cuts Back Labs Abby Kelleyite 12:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned somewhere else here (I think its in the archive now), China has a long history of contamination and poisoning of their food products within their country, and a shady history of contamination of products going out. It may warrant its own article, indeed, with a section summarizing the pet food crisis. (There may already be such an article or an article where such info could go - there are a zillion articles on China related topics, so it might just warrant some digging.) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Article[edit]

Anyone who wants to help get the article Timeline of the 2007 North American pet food recall ready should feel welcome to contribute. I've been busy the past week and am only going to get busier for the next week. I'll do what I can, but we'll need to work to create the splits. 75.177.136.8 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted the timeline article as a stand-alone article and all of the references are fixed. I have also moved the article to Timeline of the 2007 pet food recalls. I could still use some help adding more information and references, but I believe that the article is sufficiently ready to replace the "Recall History" section of the main article. Let me know what you think.Jfwambaugh 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recall history section has been replaced by the Timeline of the 2007 pet food recalls. There is still more information that can be migrated to that article, and there are redundancies that can be eliminated in the main article to shorten things a bit. From now on I hope that "breaking news" will first be added to the timeline, and then incorporated into the rest of the text.Jfwambaugh 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Food Crisis[edit]

I wonder if this article should be expanded, or made part of another article. It just seems that we are finding that the tainted food may be in the human food supply. And, there's also the story about the Bee's that could further harm the food supply. This is a really good article. I'm just wondering if we are finding that this is part of something larger.—Slipgrid 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colony Collapse Disorder, is entirely unrelated to the pet food contaminations. As far as naming conventions and subarticles, see above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioaccumulation and additivity versus synergy[edit]

The May 10 FDA USDA press conference is replete with discussion on these topics. It could be worth adding a brief explanatory section at the end of the human impact section discussing these concepts like the protein testing in the food industry section. Abby Kelleyite 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese protein export scandal[edit]

The article Chinese protein export scandal has been started. It is my hope to bring it up to standards and then remove large portions of the current pet food recall article. Any help or comments are very welcome.Jfwambaugh 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the new article is sufficiently ready for the redundant text to be removed from the pet food recall article. Does anyone else have an opinion? Jfwambaugh 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god[edit]

Someone has stolen my password at daily kos! I'm trying to get it changed now!!! Abby Kelleyite 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have got them to block the account. And hope I will be back on soon. Abby Kelleyite 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and more swine have beeen cleared[edit]

USDA Clears Swine for Processing Abby Kelleyite 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says Pork Safe To Eat, But Not Tested For Cyanuric Acid Abby Kelleyite 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

I think it would be best if we all changed our passwords. I don't know whether it is hackers but it is best to be careful. Abby Kelleyite 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

password problems[edit]

I just wanted to warn everyone that my password got hacked at Daily Kos. I've changed it now and I think the problem is under control. You may want to change yours here as well. It is best to be safe. Be sure to choose something with a strong level of protection. Abby Kelleyite 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the more wikki savvy have any better advice about what makes a good password? Abby Kelleyite 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the best place to discuss this as the issue of password hacking/account hijacking has been extensively discussed elsewhere on wiki following several high profile admin account hijackings (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins_desysopped and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Compromised accounts). See the article on Password strength for tips on password security. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline fo Pet food recall[edit]

I really don't think the section on the side of the article that has a timeline of events is very nesessary, no other article is formatted that way and this article is already way to long.Since there is already a subsection for a timeline anyway, wouldn't it be better to get rid of that part? Rodrigue 04:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I would prefer to wait for an opinion from someone not involved in the creation of the timeline article. Jfwambaugh 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is why I commented here, to get a third-party opinion from other people because if I just edited it myself people would think I was being biased, or even vandalising.And since User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson created the main article with that timeline part I think his opinion would be the same problem Rodrigue 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

acetaminophen found in pet food[edit]

The mystery fifth contaminant redacted from FDA reports appears to be acetaminophen which is not chemically related to the other four. Not sure where this info should go since it's not linked to any pet deaths yet or any recalls and there's no info as to source. It's not a particularly nitrogen rich compound so it's somewhat unlikely to have been added to fake crude protein measures. Texas lab finds pain medicine in pet food Abby Kelleyite 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that there was a redacted contaminant. Do you have a reference for that? It should go in the timeline at the very least. Jfwambaugh 19:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 3/4 of the way down the May 1 FY 2007 Protein Surveillance Assignment there's a chart identifying melamine, cyanuric acid, ammelide and ammeline as agents to be tested for with a fifth agent redacted. I may have spoken to soon though about acetaminophen being that fifth agent. It shouldn't be in pet food but it's not likely to show up un a protein survey as it's not a likely source of cheap nitrogen. If you want to add acetaminophen mention to the timeline now based on the Texas lab's findings that's fine. I'd like to see it confirmed by another lab and maybe get some FDA reaction before we break out a whole new section or anything. Abby Kelleyite 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth contaminant was also mentioned in a couple FDA press conferences. On page 26 of this pdf from May 17, Dr. Acheson declined to "telegraph" to the world the fifth agent being screened for. Abby Kelleyite 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been added to the timeline, but I just wanted to update this storyline here with the news that FDA did not find acetaminophen in some pet food samples it tested.FDA rules out painkiller as pet food contaminant Abby Kelleyite 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to memorialize that accounts of acetaminophen contamination (all from the same Texas lab, it appears) continue to appear in press reports. Lab Tests Again Find Acetaminophen in Pet Food The ASPCA still maintains a June press release on its website referring to lack of confirmation from both FDA and independent academic labs.ASPCA Believes Fear of Acetaminophen-contamination in Pet Food Unfounded Menu Foods has agreed to test some samples of recalled cat food for acetaminophen. Menu Foods Agrees to Test for Pain Killer in its Cat Food. Abby Kelleyite 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menu's latest word on acetaminophen. Menu Foods Denies Acetaminophen Found in its Cat Food. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

former Chinese FDA chief gets death sentence[edit]

This should probably be mentioned in the article or one of the related ones. I'll leave it to the regular editors to figure out exactly where. http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2090404,00.html 75.62.6.237 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's already in the timeline. However, it's not the recent SFDA chief, but the guy who retired in 2005.Jfwambaugh 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Article from JAVMA[edit]

A recap focusing on the government investigation into the contamination: [1] Jfwambaugh 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't know why people don't see it, but crisis is such a bad term, which is why 2007 pet food recall is a better tittle. Rodrigue 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "crisis" is a poor term for the article, though I suggest the plural "recalls" instead of the singular.Jfwambaugh 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it must be changed, I suggest "scandal" in place of "crisis". Abby Kelleyite 14:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal sounds good to me.Jfwambaugh 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?? But "scandal" is the same problem as "crisis", it makes it sound like something horrible or evil is happening, and thats POV."pet food recall" is a completely unbiased term, it doesn't imply anything. Rodrigue 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "scandal" is meant to imply, it is meant to explicitly denote that inappropriate actions took place. I think we have to decide which is more accurate from the historical perspective -- was this just a recall, or was it a scandal? Jfwambaugh 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "pet food contamination" instead? That was the cause of the recalls. 14:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not inappropriate actions took place is up to the courts to decide, but if were going to speculate, we can also say it was an accident that the food was contaminated and call it "2007 pet food contamination accident". Rodrigue 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you, or anyone here considers that being proven in court is a necessary criteria for a fact to be used in an article. We certainly have documentation of inappropriate behavior that I do not think is in question. What we have to decide is what would be the most informative title for the article. I think everyone agrees that "crisis" is a poor choice, but we need to build a consensus on the replacement. I do not think that referring to the events simply as "recalls" captures the political, scientific and business aspects involved. Jfwambaugh 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this article. The title now is a gross misuse of the term crisis (originally, "a crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point" -- from Wiktionary). "2007 pet food contamination" would be good. Arlright 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one problem with "contamination" is that, to my way of thinking, it draws attention away from the behavior of the companies involved. We have at a minimum fraud and extremely slow responses by various involved parties. Jfwambaugh 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In further support of 2007 pet food scandal, the American Heritage dictionary defines "scandal" as "[a] publicized incident that brings about disgrace", which falls far short of legal culpability and which is a good description of the current event which has brought disgrace on a number of parties. Scandal is also widely used by a number of respected publications as a google search of "pet food scandal" demonstrates. I agree with what Jfwambaugh said about "contamination". Abby Kelleyite 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article tittle can not imply something about the subject, so please stop suggesting things like "scandal"."contamination" is better, but like I said,2007 pet food recalls is perfect.Even if you have some "proof" that it was perpetrated, its better to use the very neutral tittle that does not suggest anything. Rodrigue 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's warranted, the term "scandal" can and should be used to avoid actually biasing an article by inappropriate attempts at neutrality. See Watergate Scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Muldergate Scandal, Beauharnois Scandal, Goldenberg Scandal, Panama scandal, Recruit Scandal, Sponsorship Scandal, Pacific scandal or any of the other 21,226 hits that came up when I searched Wikipedia for "scandal". What we need to decide is if the term is warranted. I have not yet seen anyone offer evidence that it is unwarranted. "pet food scandal" turns up 53,100 hits on Google and 341 hits on Google News so it's not like we'd be inventing the term.Jfwambaugh 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just consulted the Wikipedia policy on controversial names. In particular, there is a link to WP:Words to Avoid that includes a section on the word "scandal". The guideline states that "the term 'scandal' should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs..." I think that rules "scandal" out without resorting to delusional contradiction of facts. In this case, I now suggest "The Great Pet Food Recalls of 2007". The reason I think we need the word "great" is to distinguish this incident from the recent salmonella contamination recalls. Jfwambaugh 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Great Pet Food Recalls of 2007"??? Jfwambaugh , you seem to be the one who are suggesting these ridiculos names, because you just want to sentationalize everything.Anyway, I think its better that right now we just vote if 2007 pet food recalls is a proper tittle. Rodrigue 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm also the one who suggested "2007 pet food recalls", it doesn't seem fair to attack my name suggestions. I'm sorry if you think that that "scandal" or "great" are sensational words but, if they are accurate, they could be used. Not doing so would be injecting bias.

I think we all agree that "crisis" is inaccurate, however I've yet to see an alternative suggestion that is appropriate, especially since there have been other pet food recalls in 2007 that are not covered by the article. We need a title that distinguishes this set of recalls from the others clearly and accurately. Jfwambaugh 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking back over the archives, it seems that Abby is the one who suggested "2007 pet food recalls". Since the first two people to discuss that name have since changed their mind, I think it is clear that it is inadequate. Jfwambaugh 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they didn't nominate their name choice so it doesn't matter, but this should be about voting for the current nomination.And I've deleted the timeline section, it is just really useless, there is already a subsection for a timeline. Rodrigue 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The 2007 pet food recalls]"? That seems to be a common enough phrasing in news reports and avoid ambiguity with other pet food recalls in 2007. Jfwambaugh 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Move to "2007 pet food recalls". Either agree or oppose, other suggestions can be considered afterwards. Rodrigue 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "2007 pet food recalls" per policy. Vegaswikian 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from 2007 pet food crisis to 2007 pet food recalls as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move 2[edit]

Okay, now that Rodrigue has wasted everyone's time with a move to a name that got no "agree" posts and was still being discussed. We can start all over again. I propose "The 2007 pet food recalls". Any constructive thoughts? Jfwambaugh 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In pure voting terms, two people voted to move the article to "2007 pet food recalls", and nobody voted against. Leading definite articles are deprecated in article titles, so your new suggestion is effectively identical to the current title. Calling other people's edits timewasting is a clear contravention of WP:AGF; please do not make such accusations again. --Stemonitis 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith on your part since there was an ongoing discussion that you likely overlooked because Rodrigue created a second discussion topic. There was no consensus to even vote. If I assume good faith on your part, then Rodrigue wasted your time. If that is not the case then your actions are vandalism.

As for "the" being deprecated, that is true in some cases, but not all. Several featured articles begin with "The". Jfwambaugh 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, please read WP:CON, specifically: "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.". Jfwambaugh 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "in pure voting terms". I know how consensus works, and I know how WP:RM works. I am also familiar with our naming conventions, which would never include a definite article for a topic like this. --Stemonitis 06:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way then did you reach the conclusions that consensus had been reached? You have only mentioned the alleged "votes". We very clearly have two people who disagree with the new name and there were very clear alternate proposals being discussed.

Additionally, deleting my move request for having a typo is pretty lousy. If you wanted to be helpful, you could have fixed the typo. You are really pushing good faith.

At least "crisis" is gone from the title.Jfwambaugh 13:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using crisis in the first name was simply wrong. Clearly the title needed to be changed to remove that word. The entries that expressed a simply stated opinion clearly supported fixing that problem. That does not mean that was the only problem. If we are going to complain about the process, then maybe these discussions should be setup with the layout in WP:RM. Even the old link to this discussion was not correct. Based on the nomination, this discussion probably does not belong at WP:RM since the nomination implies that there is an issue of how much the article should cover. Given that, the point may be better stated that we need to consider multiple articles for each company. If that is the case, then those articles can be created if everyone believes that is the right action. That is not a WP:RM issue. Vegaswikian 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jfwambaugh, why are going to all this trouble to change the add "the" to the tittle?.I'm sorry you feel I did something wrong, but I didn't move the article, someone else did after the voting process, which you did not participate.

You've changed your mind several times about what the name should be, and frankly I don't know if you what your trying to do.No one really opposed the tittle I proposed, but I wonder who supports a tittle with the term "scandal", which is exactly the same as "crisis",which you oppose hypocritically.Unless your making an official move proposal, this is going nowhere. Rodrigue 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already established that "scandal" is not at all the same as "crisis" (see Abby's comment above). I realize that you have the same problem with the two terms, but it's not fair to say that they are the same. And while I didn't participate in your Friday afternoon "vote", I did continue the discussion because one doesn't vote on editorial matters. (And if you are going to continue to be that picky, since no one voted agree or oppose there were technically no votes cast.)

While I agree that I have changed my mind, that is because other people have raised points I thought were worth considering. As I see them we need a name that:

Is POV appropriate
Refers only to the recalls initiated by (but not not exclusive to) Menu Foods
Reflects that there were extraordinary issues surrounding the recalls including political manuevering, legislation, and litigation.

"Scandal", while having conotations you are uncomfortable with, is at least technically correct. I think we are still in search of an alternative name unless nobody else agrees (a seemingly likely outcome, I concede).

Personally, I'm just tired of random Wikipedia users showing up and renaming the article. Jfwambaugh 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jfwambaugh, you seem to be ijnoring the fact that there 2 votes to move the page and none to keep it.And for the last time, I did not move the page.A user moved the page after and archived it after somediscussion and the voting thing.

I don't know what your trying to accomplish, but I don't see much of a chance of the page being moved at this point, and this discussion really is pointless, as I'm sure adding "the" to the tittle is dubious.I would advice you to just stop wasting time and remove your nomination. 192.30.202.19 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still do not agree with either "votes" held over the weekend or users moving a page rather than participating in ongoing dicussion, there doesn't seem to be any support for continuing to discuss a new article name so I have withdrawn my request.

I have thought some about starting articles with "the" and I have to say I now agree that it's unnecessary. I have been concerned about confusion with other pet food recalls, however by its very includion in Wikipedia (assuming that lasts) the article must meet the WP:NOTABILITY requirements. So random other recalls will most likely not meet that requirement and will not be looked up in Wikipedia. As for the aspects of the scandal (a word that I still feel is appropriate) there is aleady an article specifically on the how the contamination occured. I think we can wait a little while to determine whether there is enough interest to generate an article on the actions of the domestic companies. Jfwambaugh 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur-Ellis[edit]

The FDA reports that the company Wilbur-Ellis was the importer of the wheat gluten from China which went on to be used by Menu Foods Limited and contaminate the Nort American pet food supply: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01620.html. There is no mention of this in the article, or in the Chinese_protein_export_scandal.

Really bad idea[edit]

It was a bad idea to split off such a huge amount of key information to the Timeline of the 2007 pet food recalls article, as was done here. Since so much of the information removed from the narrative of the article was information basic to the issue, it leaves this article woefully inadequate. An article about the 2007 pet food recalls with all mention of Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company removed? That's really ill-considered. Badagnani 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking was(is?) that since there was enough material for an entire article on the actions of Xyzhou, Binzhou, and Wilbur-Ellis. If you feel that we over-trimed the main article then please feel free to add some information back in. We could really use a summary for the government response section that leads into the protein export scandal article.

As far as the timeline goes, the thinking was that it would partially act as a filter, so that new information would eventually be propagated from that article to the main article. Everything important that's in that article should definitely be added to one of the other two articles eventually.Jfwambaugh 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I was originally against splitting the article into three parts (Timeline of the 2007 pet food recalls, 2007 pet food recalls and Chinese protein export contamination), coming back to this topic after a few months absence to add some updates, I think the result has worked out reasonably well. I added a few wiki cross-links, such as in the See Also sections that may help a little bit. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at writing a very brief synopsis of the investigation, mentioning the two compamies that were shut down. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled food could be bought again[edit]

Where to put such information?

For example, "Nutro Natural Choice": - http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2750847&cp=2767033.2768975&fbx=0&fbn=Brand%7CNutro+Natural+Choice&f=Taxonomy%2FPET%2F2768975&f=PAD%2FBrand%2FNutro+Natural+Choice&fbc=1&parentPage=family&keepsr=1

Smesh 18:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linked article requires password[edit]

The external reference number 57:

^ Mawson, Nicola. "South Africa: No More Chinese Take-Aways for SA Pets", Business Day (Johannesburg), April 20, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.

(relating to melamine in South African pet products) links to a page that requires a paid subscription. This goes against the Wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links states:

A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.

Can I suggest replacing this reference by this one:

http://www.humanesociety.com/pets/pets/pet_food_recall_of_foods_manufactured_by_menu_foods_inc..html

or some other publicly-accessible reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.20.251 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that the referenced news story was publicly accessible when it was originally cited but appears to have moved into the paper's archives now (subscription based). I expect this may be true with regard to a number of linked newspaper articles in both this and many other wiki articles on recent events. Adding the new suggested reference seems like a good idea, but I'd hate to delete the old contemporaneous references that might prove valuable to someone researching this topic, but, as always, I'll add that I am no wikipedia expert. I'd also like to add that it would be nice if we could find a South African reference to add (as with the original ref), since this article is already so heavily dependent on North American news sources. Having looked into this a little further, I think the policy quoted about not citing subscription sites is not applicable to referenced sources: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources." Wikipedia:Citing sources provides that broken references should not be deleted when a link goes dead but does give some advice about fixing links to utilize material from the Internet archive if anyone has the time and ability to look into this further. Abby Kelleyite 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicology study and AAVLD survey results[edit]

The AVMA has some summary information on the AAVLD survey of the 347 cases that met diagnostic criteria for "pet food-induced nephrotoxicity" from April 5-June 6 [2] and UCDavis has info on the first published toxicology study looking at melamine and CYA ingestion in cats conducted after the recall. [3] Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the survey from Michigan State University including some comments re: potential for chronic toxicity. [4]

And here's the AAVLD proceedings from their october meeting. Page 29 reports on the survey. Toxicology session findings start at page 100. Abby Kelleyite 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Solved" is a little bit strong, but here's a nice review article for the lay reader, including discussion of the acetaminophen findings. Veterinarians Solve Pet Food Death Puzzle. Abby Kelleyite 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this new press release from MSU, I fear that in my apparent role as de facto editor in charge of adding new science info here, I may have made some errors in attribution or emphasis of new information from the AAVLD meeting in October. My attempt has been to add information, with references, to help others reach their own conlusions about the science. I have neither the qualifications nor the inclination to apportion credit and wish to apologize to any of the involved individuals and institutions for any errors or ommissions on my part, and wanted to assure everyone involved that I have no affiliation with any of the involved institutions and that any errors I have made are in good faith. As with any wikipedia article, anyone is welcome to edit. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest intro I've ever seen[edit]

Enough said. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info removed from Melamine[edit]

The info below was removed from Melamine. It belongs here. It is in a collapsed form because it is long. Feel free to use as much as is missing from the text. NJGW (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Official US statements[edit]

On 27 April 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration subjected all vegetable proteins imported from China, intended for human or animal consumption, to detention without physical examination, including wheat gluten, rice gluten, rice protein, rice protein concentrate, corn gluten, corn gluten meal, corn byproducts, soy protein, soy gluten, soy meal, and mung bean protein.^[1]

On 28 April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the FDA, in a joint press release acknowledged that pork from hogs fed melamine-contaminated feed had entered the human food supply, stating: "Based on information currently available, FDA and USDA believe the likelihood of illness after eating pork from swine fed the contaminated product would be very low."^[2]

On 30 April, the USDA and the FDA updated their 28 April food safety position to include poultry, reflecting contaminated feed being fed to chickens in Indiana.^[3]

On 7 May, the USDA and the FDA issued a joint press release reflecting the combined judgment of five federal agencies with regard to the risk to humans in consuming meat from animals fed feed contaminated with tainted pet food scraps, concluding: "There is very low risk to human health" in such cases involving pork and poultry. The risk assessment was conducted by scientists from FDA, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of USDA, CDC, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection: "In the most extreme risk assessment scenario, when scientists assumed that all the solid food a person consumes in an entire day was contaminated with melamine at the levels observed in animals fed contaminated feed, the potential exposure was about 2,500 times lower than the dose considered safe"^[4] using criteria established prior to current research focusing on the apparent increased toxicity related to the interaction of melamine and cyanuric acid in vivo,^[5] for which there is no established safe dosage. FDA and USDA are in the process of identifying a group of experts to convene a scientific advisory board that would be charged with reviewing the risk assessment and contributing to future scientific analysis related to the risk of melamine and its compounds to humans and animals.^[4]

Risks to human health from this mode of entering the human food supply have been said to be low according to a number of FDA, CDC and university toxicologists, though it was acknowledged that how melamine had harmed cats and dogs remains something of a mystery.^[6]

On 10 May, on further inquiry into the risk to animal and human health of ingesting melamine and cyanuric acid in combination, Dr. David Acheson, Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection with the FDA said: "I'm not aware of any published studies on that. I have seen some preliminary data that would indicate that they are additive. When you put the two together, they are additive rather than synergistic.... The risk assessors also estimated that even if synergism were to occur, it would be unlikely to result in more than a tenfold increase in overall toxicity, and that still gives you a very large margin of safety." No data supporting additivity was produced at this time. No basis for estimating a tenfold increase in risk in the case of synergism was offered.^[7]

On 15 May USDA announced that meat from pigs that ate melamine-tainted food has been cleared for human consumption. About 56,000 pigs have been affected in several states. However, no tests have been carried out on the effects of cyanuric acid in pork as well as possible affects of interaction with melamine in the body. While the statement also said that there is no evidence of bioaccumulation of melamine alone, no mention was made whether bioaccumulation might be affected by the interaction of melamine and cyanuric acid in vivo.^[8]

On 25 May, in a US FDA/CSFAN (Food & Drug Administration/ Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) Interim Melamine and Analogues Safety/Risk Assessment, FDA stated: "While it is entirely possible that the analogues are more or less potent than the parent compound, melamine, we have no information that assesses the relative potency of the three analogues as compared to melamine; therefore, for the purpose of this interim assessment, we have made an assumption of equal potency. It has been hypothesized that melamine may interact synergistically with its three analogues, but no studies have been conducted that specifically test this hypothesis. Very preliminary work suggests that if it does occur, the formation of lattice crystals, particularly between melamine and cyanuric acid, takes place at very high dose levels and is a threshold and concentration dependent phenomenon that would not be relevant to low levels of exposure. Although still under investigation, it now appears that the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid has been linked to the acute renal failure in cats and dogs that have eaten the suspect pet foods...."^[9]

On 30 May the FDA issued a press release stating that two US-based animal feed manufacturers had been adulterating livestock feed and fish/shrimp feed with melamine.^[10]^[11]

In addition to now testing a wide variety of imported food products and ingredients for melamine contamination, FDA has also "asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to use its surveillance network to monitor for signs of human illness, such as increased renal failure, that could indicate contamination of the human food supply."^[12]

Official EC statements[edit]

On 7 June (updated 4 July), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in EFSA's Provisional Statement on a Request from the European Commission Related to Melamine and Structurally Related Compounds such as Cyanuric acid in Protein-rich Ingredients Used for Food and Feed, concluded: "EFSA provisionally recommends to apply a TDI of 0.5 mg/kg b.w. for the total of melamine and its analogues .... A source of uncertainty is the combined toxicity of melamine and cyanuric acid and their possible synergistic effects in relation to the recently observed toxicity linked to the acute renal failure and death of pet animals (cats and dogs) in the U.S. This mechanism is currently under investigation."^[13]

On 21 June The Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General of the European Commission (EC) in reporting the Summary Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (7 June & 8) directed that "in case food producing animals have been fed with feed contaminated with melamine and related compounds, there is for the purpose of protecting human health, taking into account the conclusions of the EFSA statement, no need to take restrictive measures as regards the animals which have been fed with contaminated feed and as regards food of animal origin originating from animals fed with contaminated feed."^[14]

References

^ "IMPORT ALERT #99-29, "DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF ALL VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA FOR ANIMAL OR HUMAN FOOD USE DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF MELAMINE AND/OR MELAMINE ANALOGS"". FDA. 27 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-01.
^ "Joint Update: FDA/USDA Update on Tainted Animal Feed". USDA and FDA. 28 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-30.
^ "Joint Update: FDA/USDA Trace Adulterated Animal Feed to Poultry". USDA and FDA. 30 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-01.
^ ^a ^b "FDA/USDA Joint News Release: Scientists Conclude Very Low Risk to Humans from Food Containing Melamine". USDA and FDA. 7 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-07.
^ Barboza, David (9 May 2007). "Another Chemical Emerges in Pet Food Case". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
^ McNeil, Donald (2 May 2007). "Pet Food Chemical Unlikely to Pose Threat to Humans, Experts Say, as U.S. Continues Inquiry". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
^ "TRANSCRIPT OF FDA-USDA UPDATE ON ADULTERATED ANIMAL FEED". USDA and FDA. 10 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
^ Cite error: The named reference USDAmay15 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Interim Melamine and Analogues Safety/Risk Assessment". FDA. 25 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
^ ""Tembec and Uniscope Voluntary Recall Feed Ingredients, FDA Asks Feed Manufacturers to Avoid Ingredients Containing Melamine"". FDA. 30 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
^ Andrew Martin (31 May 2007). "Poison used in China is found in U.S.-made animal feed". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-06-01.
^ "Testimony By Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Department of Health and Human Services before The Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee". FDA. 12 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
^ "EFSA's Provisional Statement on a Request from the European Commission Related to Melamine and Structurally Related Compounds such as Cyanuric acid in Protein-rich Ingredients Used for Food and Feed" (PDF). EFSA. 4 July 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
^ "Summary Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health" (PDF). 21 June 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-25.