Did you know dog meat is served in restaurants in South Korea? I didn't. In the United States and most western countries, Fido is a family companion and while it's not ethical to judge another culture by our standards, anyone who doesn't at least (humanely) butcher the animal first is acting without proper care. South Korea relies on western consumerism for their economy and needs to be aware that we do not accept the practice of skinning and boiling dogs alive. Originally shared by April Benney Over 6,000 restaurants in South Korea are still serving dog meat even though it is now illegal. In many Asian countries dogs are boiled alive or skinned alive when slaughtered. It's an unbelievably horrendous & torturous way to die. I know a lot of you hate seeing this kind of posts on G+, but the Asian industry slaughtering dogs & cats is how I first got involved in animal rights & it will always be my main animal welfare concern. It's intolerable what is happen...
Comments
The article seems to be derived from early results and not final results/white paper on the results. There is no information on methodology of the test (was there any methodology?), how big the sample was, what brought this "problem" to light, is it a singular ingredient or a mix of ingredients etc. .
In summary am not mad at Jason ON for pointing out the article. But vets always tell people, who cook their own dog food, to always make sure that there is adequate protein and VEGETABLES in a chicken and rice diet. So time to call BS on the article for being long on the scare tactic and extremely short on real information much less links to where the author got the story (if the article is based on fact where is the FDA notice that the article is based on).
And when you cook your dog's food at home it's not put through a processing plant that may or may not cause it to be harmful to your pet.
Also agree about fixing dog food at home is different than an industrial operation making dog food.
The backstory to my outrage in my first post was about naming certain vegetables but not saying why they were named. And were all the ingredients guilty individually, not sure if these were the ingredients, or as a group together were they all guilty?
Why does this matter? A vet we know using this article tore into my wife and I for using these ingredients in our made-up dog food. As a Doctor she should have known better than that (Doctors are supposed to think logically before blurting out). She did not bother to do anything other than mouth what the author of the blog said.
So when you posted the article, wanted to make sure that the article was called for the BS that it is. No attribution to any source, from an unknown blog of questionable journalistic integrity, and unverified statements that were dubious.
Since there are no links to the FDA results and no quotes from an FDA spokesperson how true is the article?
How does an article reader know the bias of the author? Is the author biased against a particular brand of dog food which only contains these ingredients and starting a slam campaign against that manufacturer? Did the authors' dog die and the author blames the dog food and no one is taking the authors' grief seriously?
Joseph Goebbels had stated that the best lie starts with a kernel of truth and wrap the lie around on that kernel. This is an excellent study in that philosophy.
Never used to be so skeptical of articles but now in the new world order of Trumpism, if there is no attribution the article is suspect. Being gullible about "news articles" is a luxury that is now past.
With traditional news sources we trust the editors and the policies that keep reporters honest. With blogs or smaller news outlets, they probably don't have those resources. It's one of the reasons I stay away from "blogs" and if you'll notice at the top, I say "may" twice. I place no credence on this article other than to say it's possible.