I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend. Why? This stupid #gifwars thing people are so proud of. This Adam Black guy said he doesn't like gifs and now everyone is mass trolling him. Having been mass trolled like this I can relate to him easily enough. Have an opinion and the collective might of Google+'s lower class denizens jump on a bandwagon. I just saw a post where someone wanted to jump on board and had to get clarification she was tagging the proper Adam Black. She wasn't even connected to him ! Nor was she a part of the original discussion. She just wanted to follow the herd. When I called her out of it she claimed, "one gif doesn't make a troll." Perhaps not, but she's contributing to a larger troll effort. One straw doesn't break the camel's back, but thousands will. So, tonight, Google+ disgusts me. It probably will tomorrow as well. And possibly Sunday. I gave up Google+ for two months this spring
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.