What Happens the Day After They Spill Blood?

When does inciting violence toward anti-war protesters become real enough to matter?

Does someone have to die? Does getting punched or tackled count?

If you gather a group of people for the express purpose of "fighting back" against peaceful protesters and someone then is hurt or dies, are the people who used the public air waves to assemble them responsible?

Are the bosses of those people, who are aware of and encourage these activities, responsible?

I ask these questions because the other day Phoenix Woman, writing at Fire Dog Lake, wrote about how a peace protester was assaulted by a group from Gathering of Eagles. (link)

I heard another similar story about what happened at the September 15th protest by the Move America Forward Chairman, Melanie Morgan.

Morgan is quite proud of her "Fighting Debs" for punching a die-in protester on Sept. 15 in D.C. (Listen at 3:45 minutes in to this audio link is 7 minutes long (don't want to be accused of being "out of the context!") You can hear how happy she was that an anti-war protester got punched.

Hear how excited she was that "the crowd was so riled up after our rally was over" and since they were all fired up they had to "take it to the streets, I mean they had some 'tudes going on" so of course they go looking for trouble at the die-in. (She sounds like she envisions some kind of Jets/Sharks rumble.)

You will note in THEIR description of Deb Johns punching out this middle-aged member of the "moonbat" contingent, that it was clearly self defense. Is that how it really happened? I don't know, I wasn't there, I don't have video. But in their world when someone shoves you, you escalate it, you punch them.

What if Something Really Happens?

MAF has sponsored counter protest events before and they are planning to do it again. They promise the TV media some shouting and dangle the possibility of violence and the cameras show up. They WANT something to happen. They are the ones setting up the scene.

They were down right giddy the last time the media fell for it in the Bay Area. You can bet they will do it again. The media got their juicy footage of a father of a dead Iraq soldier screaming at the little old woman who owned the land at the Lafayette hillside memorial. With that kind of exciting footage who can resist?

Right now Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward has alerted her "one million member pro-troop" organization to the event below. I want you to note her links to her good friend Michelle Malkin. This was also posted on Malkin's website, Melanie Morgan's website and on the KSFO website.


This following is from Move America Forward's website.

STOP Harassment of Military by Anti-War Activists!

CALL TO ACTION:We will rally to support our troops and denounce efforts by Code Pink and others to 'chase' the military out of Northern California. We make our stand at the Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley which has just been defaced by anti-war protestors.

Code Pink has a rally planned to denounce the miltiary [sic] on Wednesday, October 17th. We are calling on YOU the patriotic mainstream of this nation to join with us and counter their effort with a pro-troop show of support for our military men and women! Bring your American flags and signs supporting our troops and our veterans!

[snip. Location information]

From Move America Forward Chairman, Melanie Morgan:

Folks,

I have a favor to ask.

Code Pink has vandalized the Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley, California and is harrassing [sic] the landlord to cancel the lease for the 'illegal, immoral, unjust' war machine--calling our guys 'TRAITORS.'

Code Pink says it is going to demonstrate there until the Recruiting station is driven out of Berkeley.

I am furious about this insult to our troops, and I am organizing a counter protest for Wednesday, October 17th at high noon. I am planning to bring as many of our KSFO audience as possible, plus do a big Move America Forward push for a large crowd.

Tip of the hat to Michelle Malkin - HERE and ALSO HERE.

Enough context for ya? If you wish to see the whole alert you can go to the website www moveamericaforward com.

This is not a, "we will use the public air waves to gather people for peaceful assembly" This is "Hey, I'm furious at those smelly hippies. Let's get some angry people together to provoke the hippies until one pokes us back so we can let them have it in "self defense"." kind of message. And if you don't believe me you can check out of some of the comments on Malkin's page:

On October 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm, trinitytim said:
Lock em up!

Code Pink has NO patriotism. They are idiots who can’t spell or think. They are not worthy of the protection we provide them.

Lock em up or better yet, as Fasternu426 said, Fix Bayonets!

People told me not to worry about them, they are harmless, they won't REALLY do anything rash, it's all just for show, but with the video that Phoenix Woman had and the audio I have ( link), I conclude that they are just one step away from serious violence.

During the week of the Sept. 15th protests, a group from GOE showed up on the doorstep of Medea Benjamin, of Code Pink. Did they do that so they could have a "market place of ideas" discussion? No. They wanted to let her know they know where she lives and that they can get to her whenever they want.

People ask me if the FCC cares about this. Not really. Not until someone dies, and even then nobody is going to lose a precious license if the management moves fast enough and fires enough people. However, what the FCC may or may not do isn't what the new head of ABC Radio should be paying attention to.


Follow The Corporate Sponsors -- out the door
In the corporate world when your spokesperson does something wrong, spokesperson money dries up and goes away.

If someone is seriously injured at a MAF/GOE event that was promoted on your station by your employees, who do you think they are going to come after financially? Remember the radio stunt where a woman died from drinking too much water? It wasn't just the DJs that got fired.

We do know that James M. Robinson, president of ABC Radio Networks, is aware of all this. He knows that KSFO encourages and supports the MAF activities on their radio station. He knows that KSFO management has given its blessing, its facilities as a meeting space and a TON of free advertising (about 5-7 minutes in every hour) to MAF so they can gather a group of people together for the express purpose of "fighting back"against the anti-war people.

Maybe its because I'm only half human, but I can tell the difference between a group of angry pro-war counter-protesters and a peaceful non-violent protest. (NOTE: I try not to use the word "mob" because it has other connotations, but a group of angry pro-war counter-protesters might be considered a mob to some.)

Of course Robinson probably doesn't care about the inciting violence aspect of this because nothing "real" has happened yet. He's a bottom line kind of guy. Will this cost him money? Will it make him more money than the potential cost? What are the odds? What is the history of these people at this station? Do they follow reasonable guidelines?

Robinson doesn't have to do any preventative action, that is not how corporate managers think. Most wait until AFTER something bad happens, and say, "Nobody could have anticipated..."

If I was a time traveler from the future I could say that Mr. Robinson might consider this his August 6, 2001 PDB. I believe the headline would be, "Morgan determined to strike anti-war protesters".

Attn: Ron Paul Supporters. Lee Rodgers Wants you Dead!

Allow me to reach across the ideology aisle for a moment. For a long time I've been monitoring the violent rhetoric that comes out of KSFO Radio, 560 AM.

So it's really no surprise that on September 6th at 5:27 am ABC Radio employee Lee Rodgers yet again talked about killing people on the advertiser- supported broadcast airwaves. I guess the only twist this time was in addition to his desire to see liberals, journalists and Muslims dead, he now wants to see conservative listeners dead. Welcome to the club Ron Paul's people.


Background And Transcript
Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers and "Officer Vic" (who is neither an officer nor named Vic) were talking about a recent Republican debate and how they thought that none of the candidates have a chance of getting the nomination. Rodgers mentions Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and John McCain as people he didn't think had a chance at winning.

Rodgers: You are using up all this time on people who ain't goin' nowhere.

Morgan: Yeah. They need to thin the herd

Rodgers: Yep. Time to cull the herd

Morgan: Especially get rid of that Ron Paul. Gosh he irritates me.

Rodgers: Oh, he's a moron.

Morgan: And his people, don't email me. If you do I'll just delete you. I'll hit delete, delete, delete.

Rodgers: Oh come on, go with the real threat, "We'll trace you back, run you down and kill you like a mad dog. Go ahead say it Mel, that's what you really want to say."

"Officer Vic": Oh dear, oh dear

(WMA audio link) (audio link MP3)

What Can You Do?
So Ron Paul supporters, what will you do? You can't write Morgan, she will delete your emails. Rodgers wants to trace you and "kill you like a mad dog". Morgan's husband, Tom Swanson, is the operations manager, so no help there. Rodgers has stated on numerous occasions that ABC Radio/Disney and now his new employer, Citadel Broadcasting, support him. (Audio link)


Do you think you could get him to apologize? Actually, it might work for you. Why? Because you are conseratives and the supposed target audience. I'd like to think that they would listen to you.

You could really show your power if you could wrangle an apology out of Rodgers or get management to give one of those "we regret it was broadcast" bogus apologies for him like when he defamed George Soros. (link) (Wow, talk about powerful! Even Imus did his own apologies.)

Of course if he was forced to apologize for this, then by Rodgers' definition that would mean that Citadel Broadcasting management are "little frightened wussies" who apparently speak with a lisp too. (Audio link short) (Audio link longer) You see, in Rodger's world, radio management who ask hosts to stop insulting listeners or call for their death are "gutless weasels" (audio link)

Of course Rodgers didn't apologize for his other violent comments such as the suggestion that they torture a common criminal and then "blow his bleeping brains out". (audio link)

Sounds like a bit of a double standard to me. It must be because it's okay to talk about killing a black man, liberals, Muslims and journalists but not Ron Paul's people. (Oh and by the way, that man that Rodgers suggested be tortured and killed was black, Rodgers' claim that he didn't know he was black at the time of the comment might be valid, but the claim that he STILL didn't know he was black months later when he refused to apologize, strains credulity.)


Who Might Care: Advertisers and Your Boss
Now you could write a few advertisers to let them know what they are paying for while they are trying to reach YOU, KSFO's self-selected conservative audience. You could also suggest to Ron Paul that KSFO wouldn't be a good place to place ads, why should your candidate pay the salary of the hosts that hate you, think your guy is a moron and want you dead? And they aren't just down on Ron Paul, they have trashed every single Republican presidential candidate with the exception of Tom Tancrado, Duncan Hunter, or Fred Thompson.

My suggestions:

• Ask advertisers if they are aware they are paying for this kind of talk
• If they were an advertiser who went away then came back, like AT&T, see if they were promised this kind of violent rhetoric from KSFO hosts would stop.
  

  Maybe the advertisers believed the sales reps who said that the hosts wouldn't talk like that any more. (Surprise Mercedes, Lexus, Chevrolet, Kaiser and AT&T! Someone didn't keep their word that Rodgers would stop talking about killing people on the air! Maybe you should have gotten that promise in writing.)
  

  
  
• Ask them if these type of comments are reflective of their own values.

If they say, "Well the hosts are just trying to piss off liberals and if you don't like it to change the station." Please let them know that you aren't liberals, this is your conservative station and that you don't think it is funny or a wise business move to advertise on a station that wants to kill their listeners.

Here are a few specific advertisers who Rodgers is the voice of on KSFO.
AT&T (audio link) from 8/30/07
Lexus (audio link) from 8/30/07
Select Comfort (audio link) from 8/30/07


Good luck!

UPDATE: 9/21/07 4:30 pm
Greetings Ron Paul supporters!
It appears that several people have picked up this post about KSFO.

I will politely suggest (as I've stated above) that you do NOT engage with the hosts at KSFO. Do not call them, do not email them. I also want to STRONGLY condemn any kind of threats of violence toward anyone connected with this station. I've said the same to my liberal friends and I'll say the same to you.

I personally am not a fan of profanity, however since you are not part of an advertiser-supported broadcast radio station which has a 7-second delay (and the threat of $350,000 fines over your head), your situation is different. Some may choose to use strong language, that is your choice.

However, no matter how well reasoned, polite, thoughtful (even logical) your comments may be, they are not really interested in hearing from you. I will say the same for management.

ABC Radio management is very much aware of everything these hosts say. In the past management has attacked people who contacted advertisers to alert them to this kind of talk. ABC/Radio Disney had my blog shut down in January of this year simply to prevent advertisers from hearing what they are paying for when advertising on this station.

If any of you college students want to read about ABC Radio/Disney's actions curtailing speech, please note, it was ABC Radio/Disney management who had my blog shut down and my speech silenced using a bogus copyright claim. (link to Electronic Frontier Foundation)

The hosts on KSFO have a history of violent rhetoric. ABC Radio management profits from it so they turn a deaf ear to the violent comments directed at multiple groups of people and individuals. Ron Paul supporters are simply the latest group to be attacked. Make no mistake, people at the highest levels at ABC Radio, Disney and now Citadel Broadcasting know of these comments. They have done nothing, they will do nothing.

That is why in the past I took this information to the advertisers and asked them, "Do these kind of comments reflect your values as an advertiser? Listen for yourself, if not, perhaps this is not the show for you." I did not suggest anyone boycott the advertisers, most advertisers had no way of knowing that they were paying to be associated with these kind of violent, cruel and crude comments. Many advertisers agreed. A large number pulled their ads. This is the marketplace at work.

Note: Some advertisers who never "officially" stopped advertising, but did curtail their purchase on other grounds, have returned. Others who replaced the advertisers who left may have been given assurances that either the hosts have apologized (which Rodgers clearly did not), that they will not talk like that in the future, or that the offending host will no longer read their commercials. As you can hear, none of those assurances appear to have been met.

To aid those who want to politely contact advertisers:
AT&T
Wendy Clark, VP-advertising, AT&T wendy . clark @ att . com

AT&T's dodge in the past to avoid association with Rodgers was to give the commercial reading duties to Melanie Morgan, maybe it was after Morgan threatened to cancel her AT&T business they came back (audio link).

You may want to contact Eric Hausken in AT&T Corporate Citizenship
ehausken @ attnews . us

LEXUS
Deborah Wahl Meyer, Vice President Marketing, Lexus Division

It's the local dealers who buy into the advertising on KSFO. They might be interested when they find out that it's not just liberals KSFO hosts attack, but their own conservative audience.

Select Comfort (Email form)

Sleep Train, Dale Carlsen, (retail sales of Select Comfort beds and a KSFO advertiser (dale @ sleeptrain.com) (Audio of Morgan saying they couldn't torture her into giving up her bed. Nice brand loyalty I suppose, but the mental image of the product being associated with torture isn't really appealing to me.)

Kaiser
Arthur Southam, Senior vice president, Product and Market Management
Debbie Cantu is responsible for this area. debbie . cantu @ kp . org

Kaiser is another advertiser who no doubt was given assurances that their "Thrive" campaign would not be run while violent controversial remarks were made. Maybe they need to review their relationship with KSFO, maybe even with the larger organization if this is how ABC Radio disrespects their wishes.)

You can listen to their podcast to see which other companies are advertisers.

I will write more later, right now it is fascinating to note the process that goes on when the radio hosts have their own words reflected back to them. Today at about 15 minutes into the program the name calling starts, the denial that Rodgers even SAID the words he said. He calls everyone liars for accurately repeating what he said.

First he believes that sincere Ron Paul supporters are misguided.
But the rest of you are:
"psychotic lunatics who are pathologic liars"
Then he says that nobody from other parts of the country would listen to this program.
Of course this contradicts his bragging on 8/31/07 at 5:25 am that people listen on the internet and he hears from people "all over the place". (audio link) I would send you to their podcast of that comment but alas, down the memory hole.

Now what is interesting is how he calls his own comments about Ron Paul supporters, "flat out lies" and says that another comment about him joking about lighting a dog on fire a rumor. Well if it is a rumor, he started it since he said it. (audio link long Officer Vic's memory needs to be jogged since he was the one who made yelping sounds of the burning dog after Lee Rodgers joked about setting its "ass on fire") And you will note that although I'm sure he loves HIS dog, it is Morgan's dog he is joking about burning.

KSFO Hosts Recommend Accused Criminals be Hog-Tied and Set on Fire

As sick and unfunny as that was, Rodgers and Morgan weren't joking back on October 27 of last year when they talked about an accused arsonist. They seriously talked about this,

Rodgers: I say they catch the person, tie 'em to a post and burn 'em. Set 'em on fire,
"Officer Vic.": Yeah.
Rodger: let 'em know what it feels like.
Morgan: Hog-tie 'em first, that would be good.
Rodgers: Yeah, yeah.
Morgan: Campaign finance reports...
Rogers: I'm a compassionate conservative.
Morgan: So am I, so I agree with you. (audio link)

If you wonder why I bring up this old clip, I include it because Rodgers and Morgan never apologized for that either, so one could conclude that management approved of that comment. There was a chance to denounce it on January 12, 2007 during their special broadcast, but they didn't, I will note that apparently the Disney lawyers were in the room and management was listening that day, so if ever there was a time to distance themselves from these comments, that was the time. But they didn't.

I also bring this up because in a sick coincidence in San Francisco on Jan. 12, 2007 "... two women allegedly kidnapped [Jill] May off the street, took her to Candlestick Point, doused her with gasoline and burned her alive -- a slaying that made national news for its utter depravity. " (SF Chronicle Link, Link)

I'm not saying that Morgan and Rodgers' suggestion that people accused of a crime be hog-tied and set on fire had anything to do with the burning of Jill May alive, but when you listen to how casually they talk about and all agree on burning someone alive, you have to wonder how many advertisers would want to have their name associated with these people and this station.
I also like to point out that there is a REASON that responsible broadcasters still say allegedly, some have learned from the Richard Jewell case.

But Mercedes Benz is a sponsor of KSFO. Could you imagine this being printed in a paper? "KSFO hosts recommend accused criminals be hog-tied and set on fire, this comment brought to you by KSFO advertiser, Mercedes Benz." This kind of association passes on the radio because people can't see the connection, even though they can hear it. Yet the hearing connection is just as powerful as the seeing connection.

Finally, for those of you writing advertisers, use your own words and remember, suggesting someone stop sponsoring this kind of talk is very different than telling someone to stop saying what they are saying.

(9-27-2007 5:52 pm Edited typo and extended quote on burning alive alledged arsonist.)

Chris Gargano, Raiders -- Your boss needs to hear these broadcast clips

Amy Trask, CEO
Oakland Raiders

Dear Ms Trask:

Please read the attached letter and listen to some of the audio clips at the website. Please note what Brian Sussman and "Officer Vic" of KSFO were saying right before Coach Kiffin's interview on September 7^th. I think you will be disgusted.

Since I sent this letter it has been written about on Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. The website Crooks and Liars alone reaches 172,000 people a day. Yesterday I spoke about this on a nationally syndicated radio program. Although the mainstream media haven't picked this up yet, reporters from CBS, Time Warner, the Chicago Tribune and the Saints flagship radio station WWL, have all read the letter and listened to the clips.

This isn't about people in the Bay Area not liking the politics of the hosts on KSFO. This is about their pattern of morally repugnant comments that your team will be associated with all season long. In light of recent events, listening to Lee Rodgers joking about lighting a dog on fire is especially troubling. (audio link)

Keep in mind what state university your hot new quarterback just played for when you listen to the cruel things Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan had to say on the anniversary of the people who died in Louisiana following the Katrina flooding. (audio link)

Does your team need to be associated with these vile comments and bad behavior? I’d like you to listen to what they talk about and joke about and ask yourself, “What does it say about their character? Are they worthy of being your flagship radio station?” And, most importantly, do you support their comments? I would appreciate a response to this question.

Sincerely,

P.S. I'm quite clear what ABC Radio is capable of doing in retaliation for criticism, and I can understand if you would be afraid of criticizing them, however it is YOU who are in the best position to ask for an apology. If not on behalf of the Saints fans, then at least on behalf of Coach Kiffin.

cc
Amy Trask, CEO Via FAX
Mike Taylor, Director of Public Relations
Chris Gargano, Raiders Director of Broadcasting
Greg Bensel, Vice President of Communications, New Orleans Saints
Gary Radnich, Kron4

Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle
Gwen Knapp, San Francisco Chronicle
Scott Ostler, San Francisco Chronicle

Note: the linked letter was sent on 9/15/2007. (I sent the letter via email on 9/15, but I think it got caught in filters because the KSFO hosts on-air comments triggered email spam filters.)

Peter Atkins of Naturapet didn't ask the right questions

This post will be pretty "inside baseball" for many people but it was written to reach a few very select audiences. When I read about people in corporations who want to know how to "interact with the bloggers" (which either means "how do we shut them up?" or "how do we sell them stuff") I go a little crazy.

Good communications is good communication. Your actions are your actions. People can tell the difference between authentic communications and corp speak or spin. I'd be happy to come to your office and explain it all to you (and your CEO).

When an executive takes an action that is different from what he says, people notice. Contrary to some people's beliefs, although customers might not have the same high IQ (or fat paycheck) as a CEO, they are geniuses when it comes to sniffing out when people are holding back information or when they are being spun.*

Some companies say stuff like "we listen to our customers" because they think it makes the people feel valuable, but often their actions show them actively IGNORING their customers. Why? Because customers can be a pain in the ass. Especially if they ask questions that companies don't want to answer. So what do the companies do? They answer the questions that they want to answer and think that the customers will think that it is good enough, and some some it is.*

I called this dodge the Rumsfeld Technique (And yes I coined that term -spocko). Rummy "Took control" of an interview by asking and answered the questions himself! Brilliant! Lots of the press fell for it. CEOs admired his "managing" the press. And it worked, because he was good at it, but eventually it got harder and harder to hide from reality.

Below is a long post is from a forum at Itchmo.
[UPDATE 7/25/2007 The Brilliant Offy has provided a recap and summary of this story having to do with ExperTox findings of acetaminophen and cyanuric acid in Innova dry dog food made by Naturapet. (Offy really is super smart, I've talked to her and from one brain to another, I'm impressed.)


If you want to read the background and the whole thread go here
It has to do with my friend Donna and the results she got when she tested her Innova dry dog food.

Peter Atkins posted his results of some testing Naturapet did and Donna replied and point out the holes in his test and story here.

I'm sorry if for some people this isn't clear or they think it is too long, but if you aren't interested you don't have to read this.

-Spocko

*With the exception of about 25 percent of the people who DO believe spin, see current Bush polls.

MY Post in the Itchmo Forum.
I know that the people at Naturapet and their competitors/colleagues are reading this so I want to be clear, I'm going to talk to you all like intelligent adults since I understand the stakes.

You are of course very aware of HOW you went about doing this testing. It was not an accident who you choose and what specifically you asked them to look for. That is to be expected. Your goal would be to disprove ExperTox's results. That is your short term communications goal. But I think we all know that you did NOT address the real question which was, "Something made our customer's pets sick, what was it and why did it happen?"

Your food, given to Donna's pets made them sick. What they ate is the variable here. I think we can agree on that (unless you want to go the accusation route which I sincerely hope you do not given all the incredible lengths that Donna went through to deal with you in good faith)

How you responded to Donna and your specific follow up shows clearly the focus was to shut down the criticism rather than address the real question.

I understand that posture. It is what your stockholders would expect you to do. Of course if you want to keep your customers happy you would probably want to find out the answer to that question. Why? So it doesn't happen again. Because making pets sick is not good for business. Maybe you have looked back up the supply chain and found the Chinese vitamin manufacturer that made the mistake. Maybe you found another chemical that you don't want to talk about but you quietly changed suppliers. Your lawyers would probably advise you to keep that quiet because that's what lawyers do. "Don't make any extra information available unless they ask, preferably under a subpoena!"

And that is shown specifically when you look at what the UC Davis lab was ONLY requested to look for, Acetaminophen. Note: No request to look for cyanuric acid. Which was ALSO found in Donna's food sample.
Other tests might have come back, but you did not post the results. If not, why not? And of course the MidWest test (who I believe is your regular lab) wasn't even looking for acetaminophen.

Now I note that ExperTox also tested a sample, clever move on your part.
So what does that mean, was ExperTox wrong on Donna's sample or were they wrong on your sample? I'll expect you to throw out the "opened bag" gambit, where you make a subtle accusation at the honesty of the person who has shown time and time again that they are not trying to shake you down, yet simply wants the truth. This same gambit was used by P&G and Iams on Ben here at Itchmo. You throw the burden back on the consumer and work to discredit the lab. In my conversations with people in the industry this is considered SOP when dealing with these issues.

I want you all to know something.

NB: Latin for Note Well.

This is not about someone who is putting a finger in her chili to get money out of Wendy's. These are not people who are bringing cockroaches from home to put in the food at the restaurant to get a free meal. These are not hysterical pet owners who are freaking out when Rover gets a tummy ache.

You would know if the people who reported problems here on this forum were looking to shake you down if they acted like those people. They. Did. Not.

Yet you have chosen to treat them like false accusers rather than people who simple want to know, "What is it in your food that made my pet sick? Why did this batch make my pets sick when it never made them sick before?" They expected YOU to look out for their pets first because they thought that it would ALSO be good for your business.

So instead of working so hard to only DISPROVE results, you might have worked hard to answer the question, what WAS it that made the pets sick? Isn't THAT something that all the employees at Naturapet would like to know? Maybe it isn't something that has revealed itself yet, remember it took a while to find the cause of the Menu Foods recall one lab's results weren't replicated, yet the bottom line was SOMETHING was making the pets sick and killing them. That should be you goal.

This is an important distinction and one that must be made. In a world with a working government that is designed to protect the food supply the FDA or USDA should be answering the question as an outside group, but sadly they have proved that only a major disaster gets them to act and then slowly and with the concerns of the business first and customers later.

At some time I'd like get into a discussion about testing methods done by all these labs the LACK of apples to apples sample comparisons and the issue of LG-MS vs GC-MS and methodology. I've had discussions with people in the scientific community about all of these, but first:

The issue of the "retain sample is a composite of the entire production run".

To be clear I'll call this the poison potato vs. the poison soup analogy.

Let's say you have a stew and you have some poison potatoes in it and the person testing the stew only takes a scoop of the stew without potatoes. Tested for poison it will reveal nothing. The potatoes are in discrete lumps and can be missed.

Now if you have a smooth bowl of tomato soup and the person testing the soup takes a scoop out of the soup and tests it for poison it will reveal the poison because the poison is probably evenly mixed throughout the soup.

So is the food more like stew or like soup? Did your test get the "poison potatoes" in the stew? ExperTox says they stand by Donna's results. Why the problem with YOUR sample? Why not do the same test with her samples?

The sample of the product in question (and I've seen the photos) was more like stew, I've seen the lumps. So unless the "composite of the entire production run" shows the same lumps then you were testing the scoop without the "poison potato".

Everyone here understands the high stakes. We also understand the methods that companies will use to avoid dealing with the real problem. Many of us live in the real world and can see through techniques designed to calm the consumers and not address the underlying issue.

The industry holds up the Johnson and Johnson company as the gold standard for how to deal with a crisis with food and drugs. Ironically it was their branded acetaminophen that had to be recalled. What few people remember is that at the time their actions were considered "over reactions" in the industry and I believe that they were first punished by Wall Street for doing a global recall. Many thought that they would never recover, but people KNEW by their actions that the people doing the recall thought first of the customer and then later about what the Lawyers would say and how the market would react.

I compare that response to how the pet food companies responded. Who does the pet food industry hires to defend them? How do they deal with customers?

I have confidence in Donna's word. I will stand by her and support her goal of protecting the health of her pets.

Can the FDA Assure Safety and Security of the Food Supply? Part 2 hearing

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007

Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply? – Part 2
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
9:30 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building
Witness List
Connect to the Video Webcast (100 kbps)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml

Witness list:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-oi-hrg.071707.Witness%20List.pdf

Thanks to reader Mike for staying on top of this.
I'm of course hoping that someone will ask them timeline questions.

Also I'm hoping for some
"What did you know and when did you know it?" questions (It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it...)

As I've reminded people, the FDA has no recall power, except for baby formula.
So faced with a new problem (chickens and hogs that ate melamine and c-acid laden pet food) the FDA decided that instead of telling Big Chicken and Big Pig to recall the chickens and pigs, they "worked closely with industry" and created a risk assessment report based on, how shall I say this politely, weak science.

And guess what, the risk assessment said, "Sure send it out to the humans, based on old data from other species and not on any actual current feeding tests, the probability is low that it won't be a problem." Hey America, how does it feel to be Big Chicken's guinea pig? Would have been nice if we could have known when we were being used as a guinea pig right? So we could say, "I don't trust your "risk assessment" please tell me which chickens were the ones I ate.

But I always wondered, if it wasn't a problem then why didn't they tell us the NAMES of the big chicken farm that sold the chickens? Why didn't they say, "The chicken is as safe as houses based on our "risk assessment" so the company that is selling it to you is ____________."?

BTW, I'm pretty sure I know which one of the Big Chicken players it is, but of course after I alerted the advertisers to the violent rhetoric of the talk radio people and they shut down my blog and threatened me I have no desire to expose myself to the censorship games of yet another multi-billion dollar industry. (Hey, maybe I should tell people if they send me a self addressed stamped envelop along with $100 bucks then I can say, "You didn't hear it from me." )

Here's my questions that they won't get to because I don't have any real power (aka lobbyists whispering into my ear).

Did Big Chicken put the pressure on the FDA to create this "risk assessment" so that they could get the USDA stamp so they could sell to humans? What role did Big Chicken and Big Pig have in this process of determining the safety of the food that they probably didn't want to cull? Was that contact appropriate?

I wonder how they will respond. I mean it's not like they need to lie if you asked them. I'm sure they would just say that they were "working closely with industry". Say for example Big Chicken called the FDA and said, "Create a test so I don't have to kill 20 million chickens and 56,000 hogs." Would it be WRONG of them to suggest that? I'm sure that it would be seen as just a suggestion and it's not like they are trying to intimidate the FDA. I do wonder if there are some rules and guidelines that they are breaking-- maybe Lisa Shames and the wonderful folks at the GAO could tell us.

NOTE: We don't use the precautionary principle here. Therefore looks like we are going the China route. So I guess the rule is "If it's not EXPLICITLY going to kill you, go ahead and put it in. And then, if later, we find out that it DOES kill people, well then we'll stop."

I do hope one of the fine reps asks about the process of creating the risk assessment, and then asks, "Who's chickens were they and then where did those chickens and pigs get sent to?"

I'm sure they have a good answers, the best money can buy.

Updated and edited, draft was posted first. I blame Haloscan.

Lee Rodgers Likes that the Chinese Poisoned Your Cat or Dog

This is an actual quote. Listen: audio link

Are some people so black hearted and cruel that they come out in favor of the poisoning of your pets? Yes. Are these people paid by the pet food industry to promote their products? Yes.
Who are these people? One is Lee Rodgers at KSFO, and today, June 12, his new boss, Citadel Broadcasting closes the 2.7 billion dollar deal with Disney.

When confronted what do people like Rodgers say? That they were joking? I've heard sick jokes and I recognize the cadence. Doesn't sound like it to me. But if it is, is calling it a joke really enough cover for this sickness? And is the excuse, "Well I have a pet myself! So clearly I didn't mean it!" Going to fly? So I guess he really doesn't want all cats and dogs dead, just yours and not his.

Purina is a major sponsor of KSFO's Morning program. And if you think that Rodgers will apologize think again. He does NOT apologize for talking about blowing the brains out of humans. (link) audio of Rodgers not apologizing for suggesting the torture and execution of a Lincoln Nebraska man. Link

He never bothered to apologize for saying someone suspected of a crime be burned alive (Melanie Morgan added the hogtied to the burned alive bit). So this isn't just a one time deal.
I'm sure the excuse that the humans did bad things works for some people, but what did a bunch of innocent pets ever do to him?

I do hope that Karen Crawford, the Director-advertising and relationship marketing at Nestle USA or Kathie Day, the Director, Marketing, Purina One, Nestle Purina Petcare understand that associating with these kind of people isn't' really good for their brand.
People with dead pets don't need to buy Purina.

A friend put the email contacts in encrypted form to make it harder for screen scrappers to get the email. You must have javascript enabled to get the info.

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Keith Schopp	Public Relations	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Jim Radt	Marketing Director	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Karen Crawford	Director-advertising and relationship marketing, Nestle USA	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	Kathie Day	Director, Marketing, Purina One Nestle Purina Petcare	Checkerboard Square	St. Louis	MO	63164	314-982-1000		Contact

Thanks to Special Place in Hell for the javascript encryption!
update 6-12-07: correctly pointed out the NON-apologies and added audio clip

Paying Attention to New Orleans Pumps. Corp mistakes that Might cost Lives

Scout at First Draft has a great post up titled, Army Corps of Engineers Report: New Orleans Pumps still have mechanical flaws; also found contract improprieties check it out and also check out Matt McBride's, excellent blog "Fix the Pumps" for his engineering rigor (or any of my buddies in the New Orleans blogger community in my blog roll at the right. I dig them all, with special props to Gentilly Girl, Dangerblond and Humid City v. 2.3.


There is a view formulated by right-wing think tanks that if only government would get off their damn backs with demands for safety that everything would be better. That the "free market" will fix it all. That there are too many damn rules that are just a burden already.

But here's the thing. Rules and regulation are GREAT for businesses. Businesses NEED a working government. They NEED a working legal system. Competent government oversight is GOOD for the health of business. Just like a working media are good for government and business. The corporations will never admit this because, well then they would have to acknowledge all the good things they get out of rules, regulations, laws and a working government infrastructure.

I've heard some corporate executives say, "All I need is an unfair advantage."

Of COURSE they won't talk about the tremendous benefit they get from worker safety rules or government oversight, or contract regulations. Instead they find the excesses to make a point.

"Look how ridiculous this rule is! See how inefficient government is? What stupid requirements they demand!" Yes, there are ridiculous excesses, but there often is a reason for each and every one of the rules and regulations. Some company (or multiple companies) got busted badly and people got sick, died or will die because of a serious transgression. Or the corporation did life -changing economic harm to millions of people.

And the people cry out for justice.

"Where was the government at? How could the businesses get away with this? What kind of greedy monsters want to hide and cover-up information about poison in food?"

So then people become reluctant activists. I explain to them that they are working against a mind set and structure that has been developed and nurtured for decades. This mind set has been fabulously successful and its practitioners are highly-skilled and well paid.

These companies won't admit a failure even when their noses are rubbed in it, or if they do, it will have to be pro-forma admission of guilt which is Latin for "I don't really want to say this, but I will because I have to and secretly I'm glad I have to." (High school Latin scholars feel free to jump in here and comment.)


Corporations That act Like Children

People who study childhood development tell us that children need structure. Children have to learn what things will hurt them ("Hot! Don't touch! Don't play with matches! Careful! You'll poke your sister's eye out with that stick!")

Children will resist the warnings until they achieve awareness that the rules and warnings are for THEM and not some other children out there who are really bad. The rules they break are often designed to protect themselves and others. ("Don't eat that! It's poison! Don't feed that to your sister, it will kill her!")

I don't expect to hear children say (until years later) "Thank you Mother for not letting me eat that poison. Thank you Father for insisting I always wear protective goggles when woodworking." They don't have that kind of insight. But they should be grateful that someone insisted they do the right thing.

I clearly remember walking with a friend with toddlers in tow through the Air and Space museum in Washington D.C.. It was like the kids had no idea that gravity worked! They were ready to fling themselves off of high places or slip through gaps in the bars of railings overlooking the airplanes and space capsules. It was exhausting keeping an eye on them because they were constantly trying to evade our watchful eyes. Their quest to have fun looked to me like a constant attempt to kill themselves.

I mention all this because whenever there are calls for any regulation the cries of "Nanny state!" start. Any attempt at sensible guidelines or regulation are loudly shouted down under the guise of "there is too much regulation already!" They are then quietly shouted down with donations in the halls of congress. When we looked at something like the pet food industry we see that regulation to them doesn't have the same meaning as it does to us. But they know that throwing around the words "highly regulated" will stem the tide of criticism and bring out the defenders of all things "free" market and anti-oversight with real regulation.

Like a child they would never come forward and say, "PLEASE regulate me. I need the discipline!" Instead they will say, "I don't want any stupid rules. I'm going to pick up my toys and go to somewhere were their aren't rules." And because there are plenty of people and countries to choose from with cheap labor they will pick the ones that lets them follow the least amount of rules.

And then when some of them grow up (usually after something bad happens) they realize that those pesky rules were there for a purpose. They can see that a working infrastructure legal system, food safety, human safety or financial guidelines were actually good for them. But now they are addicted to the rhetoric, stuck in the groove of decades. Fighting the previous battle and imaginary excesses and some rare real exceptions.

I use the"business as child" metaphor because if I didn't, it would be too hard to contemplate.

Imagine people in business or supporting businesses who actively work to make it possible for MORE horrible acts to happen? I can't imagine people sit around and decide to cover up or support poison in food. People who, instead of addressing the problem, argue that the problem doesn't exist or question the credibility of the critic. What kind of people would do that?

Can you imagine someone calculating that X number of people or pets might die because of this, then asking "What do we had to do so that we can get away with it?" I just don't think that most humans would say, "Who do we have to hire to cover this it up, to make it go away and shut up the critics?" Normal people don't think that way.

If these people exist, surely they must not be lionized. Surely people whose job it is to draw focus from the problem, aren't aware of what they are really doing. I think that those people, if they are involved, will make weak arguments in a desperate hope that that they will be seen as a sham. I would think that these people would quietly do the right thing to maintain their personal moral high ground. But I do understand the power and pressure of the child and their self-centered world view. The Child will scream "I hate you!" to the parent who tells them, "No! You can't feed your sister that. It will make her sick!"

If there are people at the highest levels making this all possible, how would you react to them? Should they be praised? Excused? Rewarded? Vilified? How should they be treated by other humans? And what about the people who assist them knowingly? What role do that play? What culpability do people with full awareness have? People who know something is wrong and do it anyway? But I'm just a brain in a box. I live in the internet. I don't get out much, so I don't know the ways of the world.

When time in measured in nano-seconds, I wonder how much time should be given to people to act in a manner that is befitting of the label, human being?

Lee Rodgers' Legacy at KSFO, a Disney ABC Radio affiliate

Farid Suleman
Citadel Broadcasting

Dear Farid:

I know you are super busy this week closing the $2.7 billion dollar deal with Disney for ABC Radio, but after your third glass of Tranya you might want to play a quick game of: Meet Your New Radio Talent!

Today's Talent? Lee Rodgers of KSFO in San Francisco.

I think the most relevant fact to you personally is that Lee Rodgers thinks that "[For Egyptians and other Arab cultures], lying is as natural as breathing" (audio link)

Since you were born in Egypt, I'm guessing that you have heard this kind of statement before. What do you call a person who makes that kind of statement about Arab cultures and Egyptians?

By the way, if you ask Lee about that comment, don't expect an apology. Lee thinks apologies are for other people, not him. Maybe he'll get the program manager to say he regrets Lee said that.

It's not just Rodgers pronouncements about lying Egyptians you should look out for Farid, it's his unrepentant violent rhetoric toward journalists, liberals, and democrats and his anti-Muslim comments that are the most troubling. He now represents YOU to the world.

When confronted with a truly repugnant comment, Rodgers has said he'd say the same thing again. Remember Imus? At least he didn't suggest the losing basketball team be tortured and executed. Yet Rodgers wanted a common thief tortured and executed. What kind of person talks about this kind of violence on publicly broadcast commercially-supported radio? Lee Rodgers does. And with the approval of management, since he never apologized.


Listen to Rodgers as he talks about torturing and blowing the brains out of Kevin Holder, 41 of Lincoln Nebraska. (Audio link)

When I first heard him say those things I looked up the story at the ABC affiliate in the area, KETV channel 7 in Omaha Nebraska. Here is the story link and a screen grab from the story.



Kevin Holder looks like a black man to me Farid. So that is why I wrote that Rodgers talked about torturing a black man. Rodgers said later that he didn't know he was black then, "and I don't know now." It is possible that he didn't know the first time, but after all the advertisers leaving, I find it hard to believe that no one alerted him to the fact that the man was black.

Do Citadel's guidelines cover how to respond to hosts who talk about torturing a specific person and blowing his brains out? Maybe that kind of talk is fine on satellite radio but on commercially supported broadcast radio?

Here is the audio clip from January 12, 2007 where they attempt to explain away their own words. Audio clip.


Rodgers says he'd say the same thing over again. You will note that he characterizes his comment as "hyperbolic" and thinks he is making a "valid point". Which is what? If you were a teacher listening to a student making these kind of comments might you suggest he undergo counseling? Are these the warning signs of someone who will act on his violent rhetoric? Is there a history of violence with this employee?


Two other notes on the audio clip Farid. Rodgers' non-sequitur about the left-loving Castro came out of nowhere, but Morgan's comment was her feeble attempt to ameliorate her own violent rhetoric directed toward Bill Keller and other editors from the New York Times, The Washington Post, LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Morgan's specific wording about "if tried and convicted" had nothing to do with Rodgers comment. I recognize the legalese weasel words which demonstrates that she has been warned repeatedly about her violent rhetoric yet continues to act as if only her words on TV or in the newspaper count.

Later, when advertisers heard Rodgers' comments and started leaving, instead of addressing the problem of the hosts, your ABC Radio legal team decided to shut down my blog using a bogus copyright claim.

(BTW, now that you have access to the KSFO's books, you should have your operations people check to see how many advertisers their outrageous comments cost KSFO and ABC Radio. By my count it's 28 major advertisers. I don't know how to calculate the damage to Disney's Brand, but I'm sure you do. Won't it be fun to calculate how much brand equity these people will cost you? )

Rodgers also threatened advertisers with retaliation if they pulled their ads because they didn't want to be associated with his comments. I suppose that is one way to hold onto advertisers, but in my experience advertisers don't like to be threatened.

Finally Farid you may have been told (as I'm sure advertisers were) that KSFO management has dealt with the problem of those nasty bloggers (which is not the real problem, it's the hosts). Yes, KSFO did have a one-time special show, but as I've just demonstrated, rather than use the event to moderate his future rhetoric, he boasts of his violent comments, refuses to retract them and --since there are no consequences -- he will continue to put your advertisers in jeopardy of being associated with future verbal transgressions.

And since some people want new examples, here is a current example of Lee Rodgers wanting the death of others. This time innocent cats and dogs. Listen as he supports the Chinese in their acts of poisoning our pets.

(Audio link)



I can't imagine that advertisers want to be associated with a man who LIKES that China is poisoning our kittens and puppies.

What do you call a person who makes these kinds of statement about innocent animals?

I call him Citadel Broadcasting's newest radio representative to the world! I'm sure you are proud to have him as part of the Citadel family.

Have a great week,
LLAP
Mr. Spocko

Years of tainted Pet Food from China

NY Time and Reuters have now reported that melamine, used to make plastic, has been added to grains and gluten by some Chinese companies to boost the real protein content of pet food. This has been happening FOR YEARS.

What now?

Reply to all Forward Print Add Kim to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?

I have 5 cats that died since 2000 that I am convinced got sick from food, (with a little help from vaccines tossed in for bad measure)

How will we know when our job is done?
-Kim of Petfoodtracker

(Kim along with Ben of Itchmo, Nikki of Howl911, Theresa of PetsitUSA and of course Gina and Christine of Petconnection are the brilliant bloggers tracking this pet food recall crisis, go there and read, and donate too!)

I'll give some advice to the pet food companies on what to do next. (Will they listen to a Brain in a Box? I doubt it, but I have to try.)


1) Stop treating this like a recall of a defective product. This is food that kills living things. Not a product whose malfunction causes an inconvenience. This is not Dell recalling batteries. Think Johnson and Johnson recalling Tylenol. That is your shorthand message. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

2) Listen to your real customers, people with pets. People tell you that, but I know many CEOs DON'T know what their real end users really think. Who do CEOs see as their customer? Wall Street analysts, the board of directors and the major retailers. But they are not the ones whose "fur kids" are dying. Pet parents, as many call themselves, won't just down grade your stock. They want you in jail. You killed their fur kid, they will tell EVERYONE they know, until they trust you again...if ever.

3) Do the hard thing that will restore trust for the end user. The Tylenol story is bandied about as the gold standard of the right way to do things. J&J focused on restoring trust to the end user, based on their corporate value of safety, not "how to I keep the big retailers who buy truckloads happy?"

Don't think, "How do I minimize this for Wall Street so that the quarterlies will look good after the 25 million dollar write down for the recall.' Think, 'What will it take to convince the end user, whose pet is dead, to buy my food again?" When you answer THAT question then you will know what to do.

Companies ask, "What are blogs good for? " Most companies want to push to bloggers, to sell them stuff. They ask, "How do I get them to write good stuff about my products?"
Wrong question. Ask, "What are they saying about my company and product?" READ them for customer attitudes instead of figuring out how to sell stuff to people with blogs. What would you learn? Just how PISSED people are and, since your customers are smart, what they want you to do before they trust you again.

4) Bring in third party trusted testers. Not just "inspectors", TESTERS. People who actually analyze food. Then need to be independently funded and above reproach. Test EVERYTHING. Give them veto power over everything that goes into the food. For manufacturers the phase you are afraid of but you need? "They can stop the line."

5) Open up your records. Where does it comes from, what's in it? The cat's out of the bag (and he's not eating your food!) People now know about the Chinese connection, but do they know about the other dirty little secrets like rendering plants and what THEY put in the food? Dead, diseased, dying and down cattle are not good things to put in any food.
Now is the time to do this, or just wait until the mad cow strikes again, your choice.

6) Spend more on labeling than on marketing for 6 months.

7) Demand more of the FDA and the USDA and government regulators. Instead of screaming, "We can regulate ourselves!" Admit you have done a crummy job and say, "Please FDA, inspect us MORE. Here is MORE and FASTER access to our information. And here is the information about our suppliers. Here are our databases. This is NOT proprietary any more, you don't have to beg us for paperwork anymore." (I'm looking at you ConAgra).

8) Really communicate with your end users. The CEO and operations person should be on the phone talking to the folks whose pets have died. What do THEY want? What will it take to make they trust you again? If your communications people told you to do this and you didn't, listen to them now. If they didn't, get someone who understands how to keep your end users happy.

Lots of lawyers might have tried to help you minimize this. That ship has sailed, you need to go big with your story and THEN it will be minimized, but as we see from politics, it's often the attempts to cover up and down play a crisis that just makes it bigger.

I don't expect any companies to listen to or follow any of this advice. Why? Because right now they are listening to the "experts". The experts you need to hear from first are the people whose pets are sick or dead. Then trust your gut, if you have a heart you'll know what really needs to be done.

We hear you say, "We have pets too." But we don't hear what you would do if this happened to YOUR pet. What could you do to make your dead dog proud of you again? What would your dog, who you fed tainted food, ask of you to make it stop, so it never happened again? Your dog can't talk to you, but their guardians can. The parents of "fur kids" can tell you want they need.

What do I think? The company that goes big and demands testing, and welcomes regulation and opens up their books, will "win" this crisis. Everyone else might survive, but they will never come out of this like Johnson and Johnson did.

Who do you want to be like Mr. Pet Food CEO and Mr. Pet Food Brand Manager? Union Carbide after Bhopal or Johnson and Johnson after Tylenol? The choice is yours.

IHT Article: "Feed sellers in China routinely use protein substitute" Pulled?

For some reason the article below about melamime routinely being added to animal feed in China disappeared. I wrote them a letter to find out why. I'd call, but it's 5:00 AM in Hong Kong. Probably just a technical glitch because of heavy traffic. Just to help them out I've replicated the entire article below. Once they get more capacity up I'll snip it and link to it (don't want to violate any copyrights!)

April 29, 2:45 pm PDT, San Francisco

Press Relations, Asia/Pacific
International Herald Tribune
May-Ling Nam
1201 K Wah Centre
191 Java Road, North Point
Hong Kong

Press Relations, U.S.
Diane C McNulty
229 West 43rd Street
New York
NY 10036-3959
USA

Dear Ms. McNulty and Ms. Nam:

The article titled "Feed sellers in China routinely use protein substitute"

Is currently unavailable on your website.

By David Barboza and Alexei Barrionuevo
Published: April 29, 2007

Story at url:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/food.php?page=1
and http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/food.php?page=2

This has disappeared from the International Herald Tribune website as of 1:45 pm Pacific Daylight time in San Francisco. As of 2:45 pm PDT it is still off line. I have spoken to several colleagues around the United States and it is unavailable for them as well. This does not appear to be an isolated problem in my region.

Is there a problem with the story that is being corrected? Is there another source of this important story? There are many people that are very interested in a story about contaminated food being sold to the United States.

Please advise,
Sincerely,
Mr. Spocko

www.spockosbrain.com

For your identification purposes below is the text of the article:
Feed sellers in China routinely use protein substitute

The Shandong Mingshui Great Chemical factory in Zhangqiu, Shandong Province, which manufactures urea, melamine and melamine scrap (Ariana Lindquist for The New York Times)

By David Barboza and Alexei Barrionuevo
Published: April 29, 2007

ZHANGQIU, China: American food safety regulators trying to figure out how an industrial chemical called melamine contaminated so much pet food in the United States might come to this heavily polluted city in Shandong Province in the northern part of the country.

Here at the Shandong Mingshui Great Chemical Group factory, huge boiler vats are turning coal into melamine, which is used to create plastics and fertilizer.

But the leftover melamine scrap, small acorn-sized chunks of white rock, is then being sold to local entrepreneurs, who say they secretly mix a powdered form of the scrap into animal feed to artificially enhance the protein level.

The melamine powder has been dubbed "fake protein" and is used to deceive those who raise animals into thinking they are buying feed that provides higher nutrition value.

"It just saves money," says a manager at an animal feed factory here. "Melamine scrap is added to animal feed to boost the protein level."

The practice is widespread in China. For years animal feed sellers have been able to cheat buyers by blending the powder into feed with little regulatory supervision, according to interviews with melamine scrap traders and agricultural workers here.

But now, melamine is at the center of a massive, multinational pet food recall after it was linked earlier this month to the deaths and injuries of thousands of cats and dogs in the United States and South Africa.

No one knows exactly how melamine - which had not been believed to be particularly toxic - became so fatal in pet food, but its presence in any form of American food is illegal.

U.S. regulators are now headed to China to figure out why pet food ingredients imported from here, including wheat gluten, were contaminated with high levels of the chemical.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned imports of wheat gluten from China and ordered the recall of over 60 million packages of pet food. And last week, the agency opened a criminal investigation in the case and searched the offices of at least one pet food supplier.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also stepped in Thursday, ordering more than 6,000 hogs to be quarantined or slaughtered after some of the pet food ingredients laced with melamine were accidentally sent to hog farms in eight states, including California.

Scientists are now trying to determine whether melamine could be harmful to human health.

The huge pet food recall is raising questions in the United States about regulatory controls at a time when food supplies are increasingly being sourced globally. Some experts complain that the FDA is understaffed and underfunded, making it incapable of safeguarding America's food supply.

"They have fewer people inspecting product at the ports than ever before," says Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. "Until China gets programs in place to verify the safety of their products, they need to be inspected by U.S. inspectors. This open-door policy on food ingredients is an open invitation for an attack on the food supply, either intentional or unintentional."

The pet food case is also putting China's agricultural exports under greater scrutiny because the country's dubious food safety record and history of excessive antibiotic and pesticide use.

In recent years, for instance, China's food safety scandals have involved everything from fake baby milk formulas and soy sauce made from human hair, to instances where cuttlefish were soaked in calligraphy ink to improve their color and eels were fed contraceptive pills to make them grow long and slim.

China's government disputes any suggestion that melamine from the country could have killed pets. But Friday, regulators here banned the use of melamine in vegetable proteins made for export or for use in domestic food supplies.

Yet it is clear from visiting this region of northern China is that for years melamine has been quietly mixed into Chinese animal feed and then sold to unsuspecting farmers as protein-rich pig, poultry and fish feed.

Many animal feed operators advertise on the Internet seeking to purchase melamine scrap. And melamine scrap producers and traders said in recent interviews that they often sell to animal feed makers.

"Many companies buy melamine scrap to make animal feed, such as fish feed," says Ji Denghui, general manager of the Fujian Sanming Dinghui Chemical Company. "I don't know if there's a regulation on it. Probably not. No law or regulation says 'don't do it,' so everyone's doing it. The laws in China are like that, aren't they? If there's no accident, there won't be any regulation."

(Page 2 of 2)

Most local feed companies do not admit that they use melamine. But last Friday here in Zhangqiu, a fast-growing industrial city southeast of Beijing, a pair of animal feed producers explained in great detail how they purchase low-grade wheat, corn, soybean or other proteins and then mix in small portions of nitrogen-rich melamine, whose chemical properties give a bag of animal feed an inflated protein level under standard tests.

Melamine is the new scam of choice, they say, because urea - another nitrogen-rich chemical that works similarly - is illegal for use in pig and poultry feed and can be easily tested for in China as well as the United States.

"If you add it in small quantities, it won't hurt the animals," said one animal feed entrepreneur whose name is being withheld to protect him from prosecution.

The man - who works in a small animal feed operation that consists of a handful of storage and mixing areas - said he has mixed melamine into animal feed for years.

He said he was not currently using melamine, which is actually made from urea. But he then pulled out a plastic bag containing what he said was melamine powder and said he could dye it any color.

Asked whether he could create an animal feed and melamine brew, he said yes, he has access to huge supplies of melamine. Using melamine-spiked pet food ingredient was not a problem, he said, even thought the product would be weak in protein.

"Pets are not like pigs or chickens," he said casually, explaining that cheating them on protein won't matter. "They don't need to grow fast."

The feed seller makes a heftier profit because the substitute melamine scrap is much cheaper than purchasing soy, wheat or corn protein.

"It's true you can make a lot more profit by putting melamine in," said a second animal feed seller here in Zhangqiu. "Melamine will cost you about $1.20 per ton for each protein count whereas real protein costs you about $6, so you can see the difference."

Few people outside of agriculture know about melamine here. The Chinese media, which is strictly censored, has not reported much about melamine or the pet food recall overseas. And no one in agriculture here seems to believe that melamine is particularly harmful to animals or pets in small doses.

A man named Jing, who works in the sales department at the Shandong Mingshui Great Chemical Group, said Friday that melamine scrap prices had been rising but he was not aware of how the company's product was being used.

"We have an auction for melamine scrap every three months," he said. "I haven't heard of it being added to animal feed. It's not for animal feed."

David Barboza reported from Zhangqiu and Alexei Barrionuevo reported from Chicago. Rujun Shen also contributed reporting.

Q. Can the FDA recall Food? A. No.*

Windows media Video of GAO superstar Lisa Shames speaking about FDA. Link about 7 minutes

Q. Can the FDA recall food? A. No. (*with the exception of baby formula)

The FDA can not make mandatory recalls for food tainted with bad wheat, rice or corn gluten. They can't issue a recall for HUMAN food folks. NOT just pet food. I've been asking people this question lately and most are surprised to find out this simple piece of information.

So if you hear a story about this bad gluten getting into the human food chain AND that gluten is put into a product shipped to a store near you, remember, the company has to voluntarily issue a recall, the company has NO deadline to issue information to the public (or the FDA for that matter) in a timely fashion.

Now most companies are smart enough to do the right thing, but if they delay, dither and withhold information there are no penalties.

Some Questions for the FDA hearings on Food Safety

I asked the folks posting at Petconnection, "What questions do you want asked of the gluten importers like Wilbur-Ellis and ChemNutra?" I sent the list to some people on the committee, but don't know if they got them in time. We'll see if any of the questions get asked. And if they don't get asked the media covering this can always ask them! It's want the people want to know!

Hearing title: Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA assure the Safety and Security of the Nations Food Supply. on April 24, 2007 Link to video page

Here is the compilation. I added a few and combined others. Thanks to everyone who contributed*(see list below)

I. Questions for ChemNutra, Menu Foods (and other manufacturers and suppliers)


The questions asked again and again regarding ChemNutra and then Wilbur-Ellis were:

1) Why the delay in naming who they sold the contaminated gluten too ? They refused to release the names of the companies who purchased the product. This appears to be standard practice. Why? Were deals made regarding disclosure? Is it legal to delay this info?

2) Who suggested (or condoned) the delay giving info to the public? (This really looks suspicious to many people.)
-- Are the importing companies following a rule given to them by the FDA to NOT give info to the public in a timely fashion? If companies are being instructed to withhold information from the public, what is the time frame given and reason why? (For example, were they told that they had 24 hours to alert the companies first? )
(This line of questions may reveal to the public what the FDA can and CANNOT compel companies to do.)

To the public, delays and "voluntary recalls" make it look like the FDA is more concerned with protecting the corporations than the lives of the pets.

3) Why can't the FDA compel companies to reveal the names of manufacturers they sold contaminated ingredients to?
For example in this AP article we see, "Miller declined to identify what companies ChemNutra supplied.

We see this in the Wilbur-Ellis stories as well. You would never see a story where it says:

"Doctors today reported there are FIVE BRANDS of baby food on your grocery store shelves that might be poisonous, could even kill your child, but declined to identify which brands are under investigation."

This is unconceivable. Yet, when it comes to our pets this is what we get.
-- Nikki, Howl911.com

Did the Department of Homeland Security tell them not to name names because of potential panic if the company named also sold human food? Was there a concerted effort to keep this in the pet food category?

</