Angry in the Great White North

See all the posts related to the pet food recall.

The compound identified as responsible for the pet deaths has now been identified as the poison aminopterin , and not some sort of industrial or processing contamination:

The head of an Ontario-based pet food company said Friday he has no idea how rat poison got into its products, but denied his company was negligent.

"At this stage, we don't know," Menu Foods chief executive Paul Henderson told reporters at a news conference in Mississauga, Ont. "We have a lot of work to do."

Earlier Friday, agricultural and veterinary officials in the U.S. said they had found the poison in pet food blamed for deaths of cats and dogs in North America.

New York State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker identified the chemical as aminopterin. Aminopterin can cause cancer, birth defects and kidney damage in dogs and cats, the department said.

Aminopterin is used as a rat poison in some countries, but is not registered for that purpose in Canada or the U.S.

The company has confirmed the deaths of 15 cats and one dog in the U.S. resulting from kidney failure. No deaths have been confirmed in Canada, although at least three Canadians have blamed the tainted food for their pets' deaths.

Menu Foods last week issued a North America-wide recall of 91 different types of dog and cat food manufactured between Dec. 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007.

The company will begin testing all of the suspect raw materials to identify how the substance entered its supply chain.

The suspicion is that the poison was on wheat gluten imported by China, but that is more rumour than anything else.

It might be that aminopterin was being used as rat poison in traps used where the wheat product was stored and got into the food supply.

Or it was deliberately added.

Here's my problem. If poison got into the bulk gluten supply, wouldn't it have been diluted to well below lethal concentrations during the processing of all that gluten into the final product? Unless the contamination was very severe, but then it would have been detected.

On the other hand, if the poison got into the pet food supply late in the production process, the concentration level might have remained high enough to cause the deaths being reported.

But then that would mean the poison was put into the supply on this side of the Pacific. And that is hard to explain, because aminopterin is not used in North America outside of labs.

So who would have access to lab supplies and would be motivated to indiscriminately kill pet animals?

I suppose any psycho might fit the bill, having been directed to do this by his talking potted petunia, but then that psycho would have to get his hands on the stuff. On the other hand, there is one group of people who fits the bill.

Animal liberationists:

That PETA kills animals may shock some, but it is hardly news. In 1991, according to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had “rescued” from a research facility because it “didn’t have the money” to care for them and the PETA animal shelter was out of room.

How can PETA be so cavalier about killing animals? The answer is that PETA’s mission is not to advance animal welfare through humane treatment. Its mission is to promote the radical agenda of animal liberation, which holds that animals are better off dead than to be put to an immoral human use, whether for research or food, or even as pets and objects of appreciation.

For instance, in 2003 PETA and other animal liberation groups filed suit to prevent zoos in San Diego and Tampa from importing African elephants endangered by overcrowding. National Review writer Wesley Smith observed that the court denied PETA’s request for an injunction, saying that unless they were brought to the U.S. the elephants would be culled by South African authorities, since their numbers were a danger to the ecosystem of the famous Kruger National Park. The court said putting the elephants in zoos would save their lives. But the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the elephants “will be better off if … killed rather than imported and placed in zoos.”

PETA compounds the horror of its genuinely inhumane philosophy by employing treacherous methods. It is prepared to use stealth tactics to kill animals to prevent them from being used to enhance human welfare or increase human enjoyment. PETA says it kills animals to prevent animal suffering and humiliation. But if animals and humans have the same rights, then what stops PETA from harming humans too? This question may seem far-fetched, but there is a slippery slope between the ravings of the organization and the activism of its constituent members. PETA’s documented ties to violent activists, its deceitful tactics and its considerable financial resources create a frightening picture we dare not ignore.

PETA and affiliated organizations like the Animal Liberal Front have had issues with the pet food people:

Anna Nicole Smith’s dogs are boycotting pet food maker Iams. Smith’s protesting pooches are refusing dog food from Iams in a new advertisement for PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Marilyn, Sugar Pie and Puppy are boycotting Iams until it stops testing on animals in labs," the poster reads beneath a picture of Smith, a former Playboy model, and her three dogs.

PETA claims an undercover investigation in 2002 and 2003 revealed "deplorable" conditions in Iams’ contract laboratory. The group said at least 27 dogs were killed, and listed abuses including cramped conditions and having dogs’ vocal cords removed to prevent barking. Iams, which sells pet food and pet care products, disputes those allegations.

Iams is one of the brands affected by the Menu Foods contamination. PETA is calling for criminal prosecution of Iams and Menu Foods because of the tainted food.

Poisoning the pet food supply inflicts major financial losses on the pet food industry. Criminal prosecution is a remote, but real, possibility. Many pets are now "liberated" from their enslavement. People might think twice before getting pets if the contamination problems spreads.

For PETA and the ALF, it certainly could be seen as a good thing. Did they get lucky that this terrible incident has occurred? Or did they make their own luck?

Or maybe it was the wheat after all. But I'm not the only person who wonders if this was deliberate.