Man­u­fac­turer ex­pands dog food re­call

The News-Times - - ADVICE/GAMES - Dr. Michael Fox

In a March 20 email to vet­eri­nar­i­ans, Hill’s Pet Food ex­panded its re­call of cer­tain canned dog foods found to con­tain ex­cess vi­ta­min D. The fol­low­ing no­tice from the com­pany was pro­vided to Truthabout­PetFood.com by a vet­eri­nar­ian friend:

“Fol­low­ing the re­call, we con­ducted a de­tailed re­view of our canned dog foods. As we had ex­pected, that re­view con­firmed that the is­sue is iso­lated to the same vi­ta­min pre­mix used in canned dog foods and lim­ited to spe­cific pro­duc­tion lots. How­ever, our re­view did de­ter­mine that there were ad­di­tional prod­ucts af­fected by that vi­ta­min pre­mix, and it is for that rea­son that we are ex­pand­ing the re­call. No dry foods, cat foods or treats are af­fected . ...

“We un­der­stand that this re­call has caused pet par­ents con­sid­er­able con­cern and that the well-be­ing of their pets may have been af­fected. We are also aware of the dis­rup­tion and dif­fi­culty that this has caused you and your staff. We have ad­dressed the is­sues that caused this re­call, and we are work­ing to make this right.

“We have ex­panded the op­er­at­ing hours of our Vet­eri­nary Con­sul­ta­tion Ser­vice and opened our con­sumer call cen­ter to 7 days a week. We will pay for the di­ag­nos­tic screen­ing for hy­per­vi­ta­minosis D for any pet con­sum­ing im­pacted food. We will pay for con­tin­ued di­ag­nos­tic test­ing for pets with el­e­vated vi­ta­min D lev­els un­til they are back to nor­mal. We will re­im­burse pet par­ents for med­i­cal treat­ment for an af­fected pet eat­ing im­pacted food.”

Cus­tomers want­ing in­for­ma­tion about re­im­burse­ment should visit Hill­sVet.com/Re­cal­lRe­sources.

Dear Dr. Fox: As the grand­son of a cat­tle rancher, and with a fa­ther who taught me how to hunt and trap, it seems like you have it out for us.

The vets we see to care for our two dogs are not like you, or at least they don’t write stuff about an­i­mal rights.

I ad­mit some of your vet advice they agree with, but I don’t agree with you us­ing your An­i­mal Doc­tor col­umn as a soap­box for your rad­i­cal an­i­mal lib­er­a­tion and anti-busi­ness con­ser­va­tion and en­vi­ron­ment protection.

Hunters and farm­ers are con­ser­va­tion­ists, af­ter all — oth­er­wise there would be no ducks and deer left to hunt and no food on our ta­bles. G.Z., Bay­town, Texas

Dear G.Z.: I could have writ­ten your let­ter my­self be­cause I am deeply aware of the di­vide be­tween “us” and “them.” But you and I are on the same page, surely, for the love we have for our chil­dren, for the an­i­mals in our lives and for the “great out­doors.” Yet there is a gap be­tween us in where we draw the line when it comes to killing other an­i­mals and how we should best farm and fish so as not to harm the planet any fur­ther.

It is time for us all to bridge the great di­vide that is widen­ing ev­ery day, glob­ally, be­tween the rich and the poor, invit­ing con­flicts over dwin­dling re­sources and pol­lut­ing and de­stroy­ing the great out­doors.

The es­say about our di­vided cul­tural at­ti­tude to­ward wolves, “A Nation Di­vided: Lupopho­bia, Wolf Protection or Man­aged Slaugh­ter,” posted on my web­site (dr­fox­one­health.com), may help you see both sides.

Then ded­i­cate your life as best you can to the com­mon good.

For me, in par­tic­u­lar through this col­umn, that means help­ing max­i­mize the qual­ity of life for com­pan­ion an­i­mals and all crea­tures great and small that are af­fected by our choices.

Write c/o Univer­sal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106 or email an­i­mal­doc­[email protected] Visit Dr. Fox’s Web site at www. DrFoxVet.com.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.