Online Journal
Front Page 
 
 Donate
 
 Submissions
 
 Announcements
 
 NewsLinks
 
 Special Reports
 
 News Media
 
 Elections & Voting
 
 Health
 
 Religion
 
 Social Security
 
 Analysis
 
 Commentary
 
 Editors' Blog
 
 Reclaiming America
 
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 
 The Lighter Side
 
 Reviews
 
 The Mailbag
 
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Amazon.com
 
 Links
 
 Join Mailing List
Search

Commentary Last Updated: Mar 20th, 2007 - 23:49:05


Pet food recall: What’s your cat eating?
By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Mar 21, 2007, 00:27

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

Detecting corporate media bias often requires us to discern omissions. For example, consider how the recent pet food recall was reported. Los Angeles Times staff writer Kimi Yoshino penned an article (“Recall of pet food alarms owners”) on March 19 that was widely syndicated.

In the piece (which was consistent with almost all corporate media accounts), readers learned what brands were in question, how many animals had been affected, and (of course) that the company’s stock has plummeted. Yoshino also interviewed a handful of pet owners [sic], including Victoria Levy, who declared: “That’s so disturbing. When they put food on the shelves, you trust that it’s safe.”

When they put food on the shelves, you trust that it’s safe.

This is where the concept of “omissions” kicks in because what the Los Angeles Times and its ilk opted to ignore is this: As tragic as the animal deaths caused by the tainted “food” are, a small number of contaminated cans is not really the issue when it comes to pet food. In an industry dominated by multi-nationals like Nestlé, Heinz, Colgate-Palmolive, and Procter & Gamble, repulsiveness should come as no surprise.

“What most consumers don’t know is that the pet food industry is an extension of the human food and agriculture industries,” explains the Animal Protection Institute. “Pet food provides a market for slaughterhouse offal, grains considered ‘unfit for human consumption,’ and similar waste products to be turned into profit. This waste includes intestines, udders, esophagi, and possibly diseased and cancerous animal parts.”

If you question the motives of an animal “protection” group, here’s what the Pet Food Institute (the trade association of pet food manufacturers) has to say: “The growth of the pet food industry not only provided pet owners with better foods for their pets, but also created profitable additional markets for American farm products and for the byproducts of the meat packing, poultry, and other food industries which prepare food for human consumption.

In a particularly ugly twist, euthanized pets are often themselves boiled and used to make cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, pharmaceuticals, and yes, pet food (with traces of sodium pentobarbital for added flavor). “When you read pet-food labels and it says meat or bone meal, that’s what it is: cooked and converted animals, including some dogs and cats,” explains Eileen Layne of the California Veterinary Medical Association.

One more time . . . and this time with feeling: “When they put food on the shelves, you trust that it’s safe?”

Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Commentary
Latest Headlines
The big whorehouse on the Potomac
USA’s role in the Honduran coup and how we must fix it
My state legislature’s crazier than yours. Oh yeah?
Happy Fourth! China is bidding on Iraq’s oilfields
Pirates of the Mediterranean
‘And we elect them again and again’*
Liberté includes freedom of dress
Iraq war: Not another whitewash, please!
Tribal Marxism for Dummies
Waking up
Illusory return to economic normalcy
Cap and trade or distance tariffs?
40 years after Stonewall, still a long way to go
Gun control: What is the agenda?
Beyond politics: People for sale in hungry world
A different take on the Holocaust
The real situation in Iran: Moving fast
Ideologue
Those over 55 need not apply
A very unlucky man