#1 - I’ve never heard of this before. #2 - This current issue is not with dry food, but wet food being contaminated and harming animals.
For our OP, I’d bet that there are more incidents of humans dying from contaminated foods than pets dying from contaminated pet food. As a matter of fact, this is the only incident of its type that I’ve ever heard of.
So, you refuse to apologize for ranting against Canada for something that was not done in Canada, and in fact appears to have been done in your country, and you continue to spew little balls of deficate derision at Canada. Colour me impressed.
I trust that you have no conception of just how stupid you appear to be.
You’re trolling, aren’t you, Aeschines? I feel somewhat embarrassed at being taken in by you and replying seriously to your provocation, but you’re the one in the wrong - posting to elicit responses is against board rules, and jerky.
A pet who is dead is proof of a dead pet. Congratulations, Holmes, I think you’ve cracked the case!
Did you read anything I said? Let me spell it out in big, clear letters here:
P-R-E-V-E-N-T-A-T-I-V-E - M-E-A-S-U-R-E. As in, a precaution against the event that their food is indeed turns out to be the thing that killed these pets. It’s the smart, responsible thing to do – would you rather they kept the food on the market while allegations that it is contaminated were flying? No, of course not. That would be spectacularly stupid.
Incidentally, current reports are stating that it is possible that the contamination may stem from wheat gluten (or, you know, monkey assholes) that Menu Foods were getting from a new supplier. If true, that means that Menu will likely have to sue the pants off this new supplier to offset the suits that are likely to come against them from the pet owners whose pets died. Because, yes, Menu will likely be held accountable to those owners because it was their products that caused these deaths, but ultimately the actual responsibility from the deaths belong to the new supplier.
Now, I realize the subtleties of this chain of events will probably elude you so let me make it simpler:
A man goes on a complete nutter rampage and shoots some people. He gets caught. He’s obviously responsible for shooting these people. But wait! It is discovered that he is on some medication for, say, rheumatoid arthritis that has ended up triggering a psychotic break. Now who’s responsible?
Survey says:
ding
The pharmaceutical company!
So what happens then?
The psycho killer will probably be remanded to the custody of the local mental facility for treatment in lieu of jail time
The pharmaceutical company will be sued by relatives of the victims
The pharmaceutical company will issue a recall of the medication in question, as well as all other medications that may contain the same ingredient(s) that triggered the psychotic break
If the investigation shows that the pharmaceutical company was negligent in their testing or procurement procedures, the suit who was responsible for making the decisions that ultimately led to these deaths may be prosecuted for manslaughter.
Still with me?
Hello?
Damn. The Canadians must have gotten him. The Canadian aliens.
Any one bothered by the fact that 50 dog foods and 40 cat foods are on the recall list. I thought that buying Iambs I was getting better food for my dogs. Now I see that they are all made in a huge factory with lesser Bobkas.
I probably would be, but I’m kind of an asshole about those kind of things. You have to admit that a human being killed by tainted dog food in Mexico would be funny on a few different levels.