Talk:2007 pet food recalls/Archive 1

Archive 1

China question

I may be trying to connect two dots here that are actually on different pages, but I thought I'd throw it in in case anyone wants to follow it up. The BBC has this news item http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6540157.stm about folks getting sick in CHina from porridge. Interesting similarities? Porridge.. wheat gluten? Hmm. Pete G. 06:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for bad formatting... using Lynx (!)

Actually, as it says in the article, and in a couple of sources, mass food poisoning is a huge problem in China because of poor food safety and quality control, and industrial malfeasance. We should not speculate on whether or not random sicknesses are related unless there is some source to back it up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company?

It's quite strange that, despite this company apparently being at the root of this whole event, noy a single mention of them in the article is linked. Also the company has no wiki article. I don't have time right now to fix this, but others may want to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cstanners (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

While Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company does have a website, it is not entirely appropriate to put it in the article: see WP:EL, plus they have no relevant information about the recall on their sites. Additionally, I am not entirely sure that the company meets notability criteria outside of their involvement in the contamination, an involvement they still, more or less, contest. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rat Poison?

An editor has contested the link between aminopterin and rat poison. All media reports make a connection between the two. The article on aminopterin contains an unsourced statement that "there is no evidence that it has ever been used for that purpose either in the United States or elsewhere in the world." All the currently available evidence seems to contradict this. I have searched through the old previous article, linked at the top for all to see, and have not located a source for a similar claim made in that article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I relied on the Aminopterin article, and concur in your correction pending better sourcing. My point remains unchanged. It's not as if you had noticed the difference. Andyvphil 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this link here [1] sums things up nicely (and may be the basis for the Wikipedia article on the subject. Certainly there is no evidence that aminopterin has ever been "commonly used as a rodenticide" as the article now asserts.Jfwambaugh 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is clearly the source. I've added it to the Aminopterin article as well. Andyvphil 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Added link

Added an external link to the AVMA's list of recalled foods. It seems more comprehensive than anything on the other linked sites, and doesn't require the user to know the manufacturer that makes their pet food brand. They also have links to all related articles elsewhere, but that duplicates what's covered under other links. Saintly 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, awesome link. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

China

(AP report)BEIJING - China has denied responsibility for several pet deaths in the United States which U.S. authorities blame on a batch of chemically contaminated wheat gluten from China, state media reported. “China has nothing to do with the pet poisoning in the United States,” said a report in the official newspaper of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, which monitors the export of food, animals and farm products. The China Inspection and Quarantine Times said in a report on its Web site dated Tuesday that as of March 29, 2007 China had “never exported wheat or wheat gluten to ... the United States.” Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17973229/ --84.171.106.131 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC) --84.171.106.131 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Lead section

The lead section is intended to be a mini-version of the article, going over the main beats of the story without getting too too specific. It's kind of like the lead in a newspaper article. The lead section of an article negates the need for a "summary" section. While Jfwambaugh had a good idea with the compromise, it ends up splitting the lead, removing it from the ToC. Per the Featured Article Criteria, as an example of ideal article construction, the lead should always be at a minimum of two paragraphs. Mnay of our better FA's have three or four. As someone who has written a Featured Article (that has been on the Main Page), and at one time was unofficially in charge of Featured Article Removal, that the ammount of detail and size of the lead is appropriate for an article of this size and detail - 52 Kb (!) and counting. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the manual of style to override functionality. IAR. This is still a current event and readers will come to this page looking for info about brands and symptoms, so I want the jumps to those sections in the TOC above the fold. When it becomes history those sections can be minimized. For now, minimize the "history of..." lead to get the desired effect. Andyvphil 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The desired effect is the construction of a proper encyclopedia article. Anyone with half a brain stem can scroll down to see the TOC. No matter what, they have to go down quite a bit to get to an overview of recalled products, and all the way to the bottom for external links leading them to more appropriate resources. The goal of this encyclopedia is not to solely report recall news or be a resource for pet owners - this article is an encyclopedia article that allows folks to have a starting point for that info and provide an overview of the subject and context for the information being released. It already is history, just more up-to-date than most histories. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the MoS does it state that the Table of Contents must appear before the first section. Like most any other rule, that is only recommended. In this case there is a clear reason for a higher placement and, frankly, when the article becomes history the summary will be much shorter than it is now. Please see WP:OWN and WP:RRR. Jfwambaugh 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Where else is this happening?

This petfood scare isnt confined to North America alone; we've also had brands pulled here in SA, for the same reasons; an unknown intoxicant causing renal failure in cats and dogs [[2]]. Where else is this happening? Shado.za 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was confirmed on 19 April [3] that the Vet's Choice dry dog food and Royal Canin dry cat's and dog's foods withdrawn earlier in South Africa were contaminated with melamine. On the same day it was reported [4]that the deaths of some 30 animals were believed to be due to the contaminated food.User:Mynah2007 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Solubility

This article says melamine is highly soluble in water, the melamine article says slightly soluble. GangofOne 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate Article on China?

Now that the article is so large, it might be worthwhile to consider how to break it into more manageable pieces. Since it appears that the pet food poisonings in South Africa were related to melamine in corn protein from China, we now have three different ingredients on two continents. Maybe we should consider breaking the article into two parts:

• 2007 North American Pet Food Recall
• 2007 Chinese Foodstuff Scandal

One article could focus on information directly relevant to the recall, while the other could focus on the source of the contamination and reactions by the Chinese and other governments as they relate to China. This would leave room for a third article on the South African recall as well. Just an idea, and if you can come up with a better title for the Chinese article I'd appreciate it. Jfwambaugh 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if splitting the article is wise (yet) because it is all part of the same interconnected deal, and some of the info is still a bit sketchy. The title of the article should be changed, though, to be less specific (like "2007 pet food recall"). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the growing investigations into hog feed and now chicken feed, "pet food" may be becoming too specific. Perhaps something like "2007 pet food and animal feed contamination". Abby Kelleyite 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that since the contaminated products have been both "feed" and human "food" grade that we might as well just call it the "2007 Chinese food and feed contamination". Just an idea. Jfwambaugh 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We might want to keep the title specific to exported food to distinguish it from other internal cases of Chinese food contamination. Maybe, "2007 Exported Chinese food and feed contamination". Now, that sounds like a title for the second article in your original two article suggestion. I agree with Jeffrey though that the information is so interconnected that it may be premature to split it up. This is a long way around to reaching Jeffrey's suggestion of just dropping the "North American" for now. Abby Kelleyite 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the contaminated food is definitely in the human food supply I think that we have to do a name change. How about "2007 Chinese exported food and feed contamination"? Jfwambaugh 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The center of the coverage still lies in the recall but it's caused by the contamination, which is getting more and more complex. It would not be a good idea to get too specific only because the story has stilts for legs and seems to be getting more and more convoluted. As the pig feed (at the moment) is just a very small possible element of the situation, and human consumption is just a remote possibility, perhaps something skewed a bit more generic, like 2007 pet food crisis? It's short and sweet and doesn't tie the article down in focus. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "2007 pet food crisis". I think keeping the emphasis on the pet food is appropriate for now given the continuing recalls and the fact that pet food is where the crisis originated. Ultimately, splitting out the "Chinese exported ..." as a separate article will be a good idea, but for now it would mean a lot of going back and forth in adding new info. Abby Kelleyite 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no objections to the second proposal, so I am moving the article to 2007 pet food crisis. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyanuric Acid as second contaminant?

Given the prior information on cyanuric acid as a metabolite of melamine and that I can find no written reference to a second contaminant theory, I think the current April 24 statement may be unwarranted but I'm too much of a noob to dare take out someone else's cite. Abby Kelleyite 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a much better reference is needed for the April 24 statement. A transcript should be available somewhere. This earlier reference, however, ([5]) gives three additional contaminants along with the melamine. My understanding is that all three were also found in the contaminated food, so that at least they are not by-products of the animals own contamination. I think that it's incorrect to portray cyanuric acid as a "second contaminant," however, since there are three addtional contaminants and though cyanuric acid is the most likely to have caused death, it is not necessarily the cause. This is a bit like the original melamine story -- we want to be careful to use "association" until we know a mode of action that explains "causation". Jfwambaugh 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The source you cited is also the one that contains this quotation: "All three are by-products of melamine, which researchers said they believe were formed as the animals metabolized the melamine." As you've noted this wouldn't make any sense if they also found the chemicals in the feed itself, which is what motivated me to add the citation to cyanuric acid as a metabolic product of melamine in bacterial metabolism, as well. This may be at the boundaries of "original research" but given we are dealing with a current event, it seemed helpful to me in trying to elucidate how they could be metabolic by-products before being ingested, at least until we get a better secondary source on what the researchers meant. Abby Kelleyite 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll keep on the lookout for something more useful. Maybe one of the research groups that did the study has something posted on-line. Thanks for all your contributions so far. Jfwambaugh 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All this talk about contaminated rice protein. By any chance does anyone know if rice protein is an ingredient in the mass produced sushi that you get in the supermarkets.

I don't know. You should be able to find a list of ingredients somewhere in the store selling the sushi (perhaps even a pamphlet available at the sushi counter). So far, the contamination has been limited to food grade ingredients that made it into pet food and feed grade ingredients that were given to pigs. If someone you know is suffering symptoms of kidney failure (which are pretty different from food poisoning -- lots of water consumption, problems with urination and so on) then get to a doctor immediately. Jfwambaugh 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a good article in Scientific American that seems to cover everything known to date: [6]. Jfwambaugh 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Started clarifying the cyanuric acid references. Abby Kelleyite 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the info in the Sci Am reference, I took a stab at reordering and editing the Source of the sicknesses section. In particular, moving the Suspicions of intentional contamination subsection to the end seemed to lead to a more readable result. Apologies if I failed to make it clearer. Abby Kelleyite 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep this up-to-date, the May 3 NYT piece with the Cornell quote makes it look more likely that cyanuric acid is an additional adulterant in the "melamine scrap" which would help explain how there could be so much of it in crystals in the contaminated food. [7] Abby Kelleyite 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Protein testing subsection

I added a subsection to the Source of the sicknesses section to try to give some relevant background info. I think the cites are all useful info for people evaluating this situation and are suggested by what has been said in the secondary sources, but I don't intend the language to move beyond neutral. Please feel free to "dial it back" if it sounds too much like advocacy. Abby Kelleyite 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this new subsection might be better as a sidebar to the preceding "Suspicions ..." subsection, but I don't know how to do that. If we could add a "Dr. Science" picture of some random lab worker, it might break up the unremittingly textual nature of this science section of the article. Another good candidate for a sidebar would be the structure diagrams of each of melamine and cyanuric acid, combined with the catabolism schematic from the main metabolism article. ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Catabolism_schematic.svg/300px-Catabolism_schematic.svg.png) and some simple neutral verbiage like: "Researchers hypothesize that melamine and its metabolite, cyanuric acid, may be involved in causing renal failure in affected pets." That way, if we learn something contrary, we can easily yank the sidebar. Whatdyathink? Abby Kelleyite 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

IAMS forced Menu Foods recall

I don't know what kind of criterion you guys are using to verification of info, but here is an interesting item that I think should be in the timeline:

Tuesday here is 4/24/07. "In Tuesday’s four-hour session of live-blogging the food-safety hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives ...

In sworn testimony, Menu Foods CEO Paul Henderson admitted that his company called the recall because Iams told them they’d had enough, that their own quality internal systems had revealed a problem, and that they were pulling their own products even if Menu wouldn’t pull them all.

It was that stand that triggered everything that has followed since. Menu launched the massive and unprecedented recall before Iams could, but only because Iams was ready to do it on their own."

The page number in this blog will, of course, be changing. http://www.petconnection.com/blog/category/2007-food-recall/page/3/ Pet-food recall: Timing and triggers April 26, 2007 - blog date —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jangim (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

That is really interesting news... and possibly damaging, so we would need a solid source to avoid trouble, like a news article from an unbiased news source, for instance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I do not think it was a proper tittle to call it a pet food "crisis" and I have reverted it pending further discussion, as only two people seemed to have talked it out.Rodrigue 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion beyond dropping the "North American", which is overdue. If anyone can suggest something that indicates that there are issues beyond the pet food recalls (e.g. hog feed, hogs in human food supply) that would be great. Abby Kelleyite 14:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Apropos, "crisis", today's Chicago Tribune lede: "The tainted pet food scare, which has swelled into a serious crisis for animal lovers, now has spread to humans." http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-070428food-story,1,7734426.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true Abby Kelleyite 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

More on "crisis" usage: Googling "pet food crisis" returns pages of references, including, inter alia: Misnavigating The Pet Food Crisis - Forbes.com; China's Pet Owners and the Food Crisis - Newsweek and FOXNews.com - Pet Food Crisis Highlights Chinese Food Safety Woes. I'm not tied to the "crisis" usage, but if you are going to revert the change could you at least offer an alternative that addresses the discussed reasons for the change? Abby Kelleyite 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it back. The issue was discussed above, as noted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

April 27 Recalls

I tried adding some info re the April 27 recalls (summary at http://www.itchmo.com/read/recall-update-saturday-2_20070428 ) but for some reason they didn't make it in. I'm a noob and unsure how simultaneous edits are resolved. Can someone else get these important updates in? Abby Kelleyite 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that I was editing the page at the time. Wikipedia explains how they handle simultaneous edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_conflict. Peter Kuykendall 04:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like you added April 27 info, too. Abby Kelleyite 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more recalls to the April 26 and 27 entries. Many of these recalls were due to ANI allegedly adding protein to the foods without the consent of the brands and not in accordance with the brands' recipes. I have posted citations to the allegations by the brands against ANI as well. I have also included some text regarding a couple of brands' stated efforts to ensure that this kind of problem due to incorrect manufacturing won't happen again in the future. Peter Kuykendall 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New subsection: Manufacturers alleged to add protein against the wishes of the brand

I added a subsection to the "Source of the sicknesses" section. This is to show that we now have 2 entirely separate vectors to consider: (1) contaminated ingredients, and (2) inclusion of (possibly contaminated) ingredients into formulas that are not supposed to contain protein supplements at all.

I would expect that this happened at ANI due to ANI running a single formula into multiple packages, in violation of the brands' wishes and not representing the brands' specified formula. However, that's strictly my theory at the moment; I have no sources for that, so that theory obviously isn't in the article. Years ago I worked at a huge national commercial bakery. We would run a batch of crackers, and package the identical product under perhaps 20 different brands. I'm *guessing* that's what happened at ANI, with the difference being that we had agreements from the brands to do it this way, whereas ANI is alleged by the brands to be operating in violation of their contracts. Peter Kuykendall 12:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice addition and clarification. I suspect your theory may be correct but it looks like you've maintained NPOV to me. I'd appreciate it if you'd review the protein testing subsection for NPOV, too, as I don't intend it to read like advocacy. Abby Kelleyite 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to update the "Affected brands" section

I propose that we remove most of the text in this section and instead rely on the AVMA link to stay current. This will hopefully guard against people glancing at our incomplete and dated list, breathing a sigh of relief, and not finding out that their food has recently been added to the list.

The lead paragraph states that most of the brands are from Menu Foods. That's dated now, and is likely to get more dated with time. Now that ANI is alleged to be a secondary source of contamination, there are many non-Menu Foods brands potentially affected. Removing that paragraph and again relying on the AVMA link will solve this as well.

A side benefit of this will be to reduce the size of this gigantic article while at the same time making the information more accurate and timely.

What do you think? Peter Kuykendall 12:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the info should be deleted from Wiki entirely, as eventually documenting all the brands will be useful but I completely agree that we should be doing more to point people to more up-to-date and authoritative lists. I have noticed in some cases that Itchmo has had info before the AVMA, so we should be careful about pointing them to only one source. I have no objection to breaking the affected brands list out as a separate article, but I am a Wiki noob and don't have much experience on criteria for such things and how to handle the redirects and such. As an immediate aid, I suggest taking a shot at adding some warning language that this list may not reflect the most recent changes and maybe refer them to the external references section at the end of the article. Abby Kelleyite 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As a stopgap measure, I just implemented my prior suggestion. Abby Kelleyite 15:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A separate article on the effected brands would not stand, because Wikipedia is not meant to be a resource for pet owners or an indiscriminate list service, it is an encyclopedia. No article here on Wikipedia should ever be the final word on any subject, and each article is meant as a starting point for readers, not the end-all. Putting a big, bold disclaimer in the middle of the article is not acceptable, and I have removed it. There is a site-wide disclaimer linked at the bottom of all articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for cleaning this up. I was editing it this morning when my cable modem connection decided to get flakey. As I was rushing out the door I was pretty sure that none of my edits had been posted, but in fact a bunch of partial edits had gotten uploaded. Thanks again - Peter Kuykendall 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

International Herald Tribune Story - April 29

The IHT story about widespead melamine use was the number one emailed story on their site but it is now no longer available on their site and it has not apparently been posted on the New York Times site as is usually done. Full text from saved email follows (under this circumstance, this constitutes a "fair use" under copyright laws as the disappearance of the story is now becoming a news event in and of itself:

[Text Removed]

Abby Kelleyite 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does NOT constitute fair use in the least. Never reproduce copyrighted content in whole. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I had too much coffee earlier. Won't happen again. Found another cite for at least the front page of the article in pdf form. Abby Kelleyite 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Which kind of melamine

Was the contaminant melamine monomer or melamine resin?

The $1.2/ton “melamine scrap” in the IHT article would have to be waste melamine resin (monomer currently costs 8,000 yuan/ton in China). However that does not quite explain the toxicity, as melamine resin is FDA approved for food packaging... --Tsiaojian lee 02:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding from examining the lab findings is that the crystals that they have found contain approximately 30% melamine monomer. See, e.g., http://www.vet.cornell.edu/news/FoodRecall/prApril5.htm announcing the initial finding. I was wondering about the scrap also. Abby Kelleyite 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, from the IHT description of turning "coal into melamine" it sounds like they are talking about some kind of Fischer-Tropsch process with the "melamine scrap" as a byproduct that might explain it being more cheaply available. Brief reference on Fischer-Trosch at http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/13/coal-diesel-20060413.html I/m trying to research this further. Abby Kelleyite 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference regarding Fischer-Tropsch and nitrogen. One might expect that such a process would produce a variety of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen compounds including melamine. Investigation on the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis with Nitrogen-Containing Syngas over CoPtZrO2/Al2O3 Catalyst Dongyan Xu, Hongmin Duan, Wenzhao Li,* and Hengyong Xu Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dalian 116023, People's Republic of China Received November 10, 2005 http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef0503717.html I expect we will learn more soon. Abby Kelleyite 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

HUGE (as in importance) article from the New York Times here: "Filler in Animal Feed Is Open Secret in China". --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that. It's basically a rewrite of the IHT piece from yesterday as is the newly posted IHT piece at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/business/30food.php (all are same authors). Abby Kelleyite 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New Subsection Melamine production and use

I broke out a new subsection for the basic info from the IHT and NYT pieces cited above on production of "melamine scrap" from coal, and added some secondary source info pointing to coal gasification as the process. At the moment, the widespread usage info is down in the Suspicions of intentional use subsection. Abby Kelleyite 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, for anyone trying to look more into the coal gasification thing, there is a nice illustrative diagram in a document proposing building a similar operation in Alaska on page 4 of the pdf. http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2006_Papers/22JOHN-Paper.pdf I don't think it's enough on point to include as a ref in the article but might help people find other refs. Abby Kelleyite 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sub-article

I have linked a sub article of a timeline of the events of the recall in this article, And I just want to know if anyone disagrees with that, because some people seem to think the sub-article is unnecessary even though this article is already very long. Rodrigue 16:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no idea how these things are done in wiki. I'm just trying to add news and context information to help people understand the situation as events develop. As a practical matter, its confusing about where to add information if there are two independent timelines being propagated. From my perspective as a purely practical matter, it is simpler having it all in one place. If there are technical or policy reasons for breaking it up, I'll go with whatever result is decided by those who know more and care more, but it might be best if you disscuss your proposal here first before linking the sub-article in as a "main" article since that seems to be the major objection others have raised. Just my two cents and peace to all. Abby Kelleyite 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok,I see your point that your saying to talk about it before adding it, but I figured it was better to add it then talk because if people can't decide or if none discusses it, then it would by default simply stay there so others can expand on it.But I think the timeline being created on the side bar is a really bad idea, this event could go on for a while and that section only makes the article for longer and confusing.the information should just stay in the article sections or in my sub-article, because the page is considerably long now. Rodrigue 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind spliting is to move the bulk of the info to a sub-page while keeping a summarized version on the main page. It would be more appropriate to move the content in the Recall history section. But the timeline would need a bit of rewriting if it is to be used as a summary. --Dodo bird 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Response by Chinese government on Apr 26

Numerous media outlets reported that the PRC government officially admitted exporting contaminated gluten and "banned" melamine in food. Transcript for Apr 26 press conference is here. The spokesperson only promised cooperation with the FDA. Two days later, the central Bureau of Quality Supervision issued a memo here (in Chinese) demanding strict checking for melamine contamination in vegetable-based proteins for export. But I can't seem to find any first hand source (in either language) supporting the two media claims. Also, it is unlikely that the official response actually says "ban melamine", since anything not specifically approved for food/feed use would be banned (legally, if not in practice) by default. --Tsiaojian lee 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the english language version of the official PRC transcript. I'm not comfortable adding chinese language cites myself. Abby Kelleyite 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization of Suspicions sections

At the moment we have two somewhat different story lines competing in the suspicions subsections. One has the focus on melamine (given that that chemical, and its cyanuric acid derivative are the focus of the medical inquiries). The other story is the focus on intentional contamination in China with several different nonprotein nitrogen sources. The two are interrelated, since the other adulterants support the idea that melamine use in China is not unlikely, but lumping it all together risks losing the focus on the melamine, which is the current best candidate for the medical problems. I've tried to clarify the two stories with a little reorganization. What do people think? Abby Kelleyite 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of Source of Sicknesses section

I took a stab at trying to reorganize this too. Not much change in the text. Just regrouped to show one focus on the source of the illnesses and another to show focus on the source of the contamination. Shows up mostly in the TOC. Abby Kelleyite 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we might want to consider breaking out your new section 4.3 and section 5 into a separate article on "2007 Chinese Vegetable Protein Scandal". That way we would have two separate (though related) complete stories. Jfwambaugh 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the long run, absolutely. For now, as the subsections are all separately editable, I'm not sure what we would gain since it would require writing and reduplicating various intro material and timelines. But again, I'm a wiki noob. Are there technical problems with big articles of which I am not aware? I like your title proposal btw, if it is decided to break the piece up. Abby Kelleyite 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZE we definitely don't want to be hasty. The only reason I'm interested in splitting the article is that the human food contamination story is growing and the pet food contamination story has stabilized (as far as I know). I'm thinking that for readability that it might help to have separate pet recall-oriented and contamination scandal-oriented articles. More important, though, is that if we do split things, we need to do so in a way that work won't have to be duplicated as new info comes out.Jfwambaugh 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everything you said. I think there will be new developments re the cause of renal failure in pets but they will be logically separable from the developments in the source of the contamination. I almost wonder though if when it gets done, the split should be to three stories: 1) The "2007 Pet Food Recalls" which would include the info on litigation, btw; 2) The "2007 Chinese Vegetable Protein Scandal" comprising the Source of the contamination and Impact on human food supply sections; and 3) a "Regulatory and Legislative Response to the 2007 Food Safety Events" (title needs work) that would include the developments that are now and will be following as a result of both issues. Abby Kelleyite 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Three sections sounds like a good idea, especially since there are news stories and information now grouping food recalls over the last few years together that shouldn't just be labeled "pet food". Maybe "2007 Food Safety Regulation and Legislation in the United States"? Jfwambaugh 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more and the one concern I have is that the specific government responses to the contamination doesn't seem like an article people would be interested in in a few years (though this is just my opinion). Maybe the best way to enhance readability is to move the recall history section into a separate time-line article (there is a similar time-line for Hurricane Katrina) and then separate the "2007 Pet Food Recalls" and the "2007 Chinese Vegetable Protein Scandal". That way the breaking updates could go to the time-line article and be filtered into the other two articles. I worry that the current article already reads too much like a timeline. I also think the mini time-line would still be appropriate for the pet food recall article. My proposal is:

• Introduction, mini time-line and Sections 2 through 4.2 and 7.2 through 7.4 go to "2007 Pet Food Recalls"
• Sections 4.3 through 7.1.1 to "2007 Chinese Vegetable Protein Scandal"
• Merge Section 1 with existing "Timeline of 2007 Pet Food Recalls"

Jfwambaugh 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal makes sense as long as we can flag things appropriately so that all the regulatory and legislative followup doesn't get split up into two different places. I suggest, when you think that the time is appropriate, that you post this proposal under it's own topic title and solicit responses so that no one is accidentally surprised. As for the mechanics, I have no experience in that area and will trust that you will work that out with the more wiki knowledgable. Abby Kelleyite 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In an abundance of caution, I recommend dropping "Vegetable" from your title, as I see no particular reason why this story may note xpand to include fish meal. Abby Kelleyite 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

{redent) We should try to keep subarticles as simple as possible. In theory we could get needlessly long titled and detailed subarticles, but it should be kept simple for readability and expansion purposes. We also must keep in mind that once this whole thing blows over, especially detailed subarticles would not be needed (for instance, a potential subarticle on effected brands). Everyone agrees on a Recall history article. All the stuff about melamine, melamine research, and the effects of melamine (and so on) should go into its own article. Then a smaller article on the reaction which includes government and popular reactions.

I don't think there should be a whole article on the impact on human food supply, YET. Only reason, is because, while we know that melamine got into the human food supply, there have been no reports on anyone being effected by it. This could all change at the drop of a hat, of course, so the option should remain open. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Big Article from USA Today

I will be busy until later in the afternoon, so if anyone else wants to add info in the meantime, there are is lots of information needs to be incorporated from [8].

New info includes:

• Now have specific numbers for cats and dogs dead reported to the FDA.
• Apparently, more dogs than cats have been reported -- counter to what is in the article.
• The FDA is allowing inspectors to detain suspicious vegetable protein from China.
• Number of recalled pet food products is 5300!
• Restricted products include: The ingredients restricted include wheat gluten, rice gluten, rice protein, rice protein concentrate, corn gluten, corn gluten meal, corn by-products, soy protein, soy gluten, mung-bean protein and amino acids.
• And we have: "According to the alert notice posted on the FDA website Friday, the agency has so far taken 750 samples of wheat gluten and products made with wheat gluten and found 330 positive for melamine or melamine combined with another substance. It also found 27 positives out of 85 samples of rice protein concentrate and products made with rice protein concentrate."

We also have three press releases from the FDA including the establishment of a new position and contaminated chickens for human food: [9], [10], [11]Jfwambaugh 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some mention of chicken (From April 30 FDA/USDA release) and the products subject to detention without physical examination from April 27 FDA Import Alert [12]. Much more remains to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbbyKelleyite (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Section numbering and indenting

I can't seem to get two levels of indented subsections without breaking the TOC indenting for subsequent sections, so while we can have an 8.1.1 indent properly, if i trie to make a 5.2.1, the TOC gets messed up for sections 7 and 8. Weird. This is the best I could come up with Jeff's help. What I woulld really like to do is indicate that the NPN and Protein testing subsections apply to the Suspicions section, primarily. If anyone can come up with some other way to do this or can figure out how to beat the TOC "bug", have at it. Abby Kelleyite 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Big IHT piece from China today

"Melamine is mainly used in the chemical industry, but it can also be used in making cakes."

China detains exporter of gluten Abby Kelleyite 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NYT same China Makes Arrest in Pet Food Case Abby Kelleyite

Henang Xinxiang Huaxing Chemical Abby Kelleyite 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which kind of melamine

Was the contaminant melamine monomer or melamine resin?

The $1.2/ton “melamine scrap” in the IHT article would have to be waste melamine resin (monomer currently costs 8,000 yuan/ton in China). However that does not quite explain the toxicity, as melamine resin is FDA approved for food packaging... --Tsiaojian lee 02:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding from examining the lab findings is that the crystals that they have found contain approximately 30% melamine monomer. See, e.g., http://www.vet.cornell.edu/news/FoodRecall/prApril5.htm announcing the initial finding. I was wondering about the scrap also. Abby Kelleyite 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, from the IHT description of turning "coal into melamine" it sounds like they are talking about some kind of Fischer-Tropsch process with the "melamine scrap" as a byproduct that might explain it being more cheaply available. Brief reference on Fischer-Trosch at http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/13/coal-diesel-20060413.html I/m trying to research this further. Abby Kelleyite 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference regarding Fischer-Tropsch and nitrogen. One might expect that such a process would produce a variety of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen compounds including melamine. Investigation on the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis with Nitrogen-Containing Syngas over CoPtZrO2/Al2O3 Catalyst Dongyan Xu, Hongmin Duan, Wenzhao Li,* and Hengyong Xu Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dalian 116023, People's Republic of China Received November 10, 2005 http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef0503717.html I expect we will learn more soon. Abby Kelleyite 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, for anyone trying to look more into the coal gasification thing, there is a nice illustrative diagram in a document proposing building a similar operation in Alaska on page 4 of the pdf. http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2006_Papers/22JOHN-Paper.pdf I don't think it's enough on point to include as a ref in the article but might help people find other refs. Abby Kelleyite 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems increasingly like Barboza is talking about melamine monomer but perhaps both kinds are used as NPN adulterants. Have you seen any reference anywhere that raises this as a possibility? It would be good to get the debate, if any, into the article for NPOV. Surely someone quotable has raised this possibility but I can't find it in english, anyway. Abby Kelleyite 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anybody in mainstream media looking into this. In his Apr 30 article, Barboza said melamine costs "about $1.20 for each protein count per ton". Melamine is about 66% nitrogen while protein has 16%. Assuming a "protein count" = 1% protein, his description means one can replace 1 ton of pure protein by 0.25 ton of melamine at a price of $120. That gives a melamine price of $480/ton, or about 3840 yuan/ton. Compare that with the going price of urea in China (it takes 3 molecule of urea to make 1 molecule of melamine), Barboza's melamine does look more like the monomer. However, from a business point of view, waste melamine plastic would be much cheaper than even monomer (industrial grade of mixed by-product), somewhat less toxic and deliver almost the same amount of NPN... --Tsiaojian lee 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that both may be being used, particularly with what you have reported in regard to the "prior art" of using ground urea-formaldehyde resin. There was mention in one of the barboza pieces, if I remember correctly, that the melamine scrap he was talking about used to be free and now is auctioned off. I seriously suspect that it is a mixture of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen of varying compositions (including melamine and cyanuric acid) produced as a residue in the coal->urea->melamine process, much like the mix of hydrocarbon waste in the standard FT coal gasification. I hope (because of the expected lower toxicity) that ground melamine resin may be the more common contaminant. Both companies he's focused on so far, though, have been chemical manufacturers. I fear there may be a lot of this glop. Anyway, if you find even a chinese language only ref re ground melamine resin, I'd add it for balance. Abby Kelleyite 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

After doing some research, I re-wrote the synthesis section of melamine. What you suspected indeed looks VERY LIKELY!! The solid from melamine waste water contains mostly melamine but also some cyanuric acid etc. Since it's an unwanted waste it would also be very cheap. That also explains the cyanuric acid... --Tsiaojian lee 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Added from user talk page to help others follow the developments. Abby Kelleyite 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm wondering if recent changes in the process (signaled perhaps by the 2005 paper above) have resulted in either (or both) more waste being produced or an increase in the percentage of cyanuric acid in the effluent and an increase in the toxicity of the melamine cyanuric acid crystals. Any leads/thoughts apreciated. Abby Kelleyite 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This reference demonstrates that cyanuric acid production via urea pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) varies tremendously depending upon such variables as temperature and pressure. There is a helpful temperature-dependency reaction scheme diagram on page 7 of the pdf Shaber et al., Study of the thermal decomposition of urea (pyrolysis) reaction and importance to cyanuric acid production, American Laboratory, August 1999, so if there were significant changes in the process for producing melamine, it would not be surprising to see a significant change in the amount of cyanuric acid produced in waste. Abby Kelleyite 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chem Nutra invoice pdf

This link is provided for source research purposes. Itchmo says they have no reason to doubt validity but do not offer any proof re same.

Chem Nutra invoice showing importation of wheat gluten from Suzhou Textiles Abby Kelleyite 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, all this over $20000 of contaminated proetein? I think that that could be mentioned and included as unsubstantiated evidence. Jfwambaugh 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Content into Smaller Articles

Because the article has gotten quite large and because there are (at least) two major stories now, I suggest that the article be split into three smaller articles.

• "2007 Pet Food Recalls":

Introduction, mini time-line, Sections 2 through 4.2, and 7.2 through 7.4

• "2007 Chinese Protein Scandal":

Sections 4.3 through 7.1.1

• "Timeline of 2007 Pet Food Recalls"

Merge Section 1 with existing time-line article.

I think that day-to-day updates could go to the time-line, and then filter through to the main article. Political, criminal, and forensic aspects of the melamine contamination could be handled in the scandal article. What does everyone else think?Jfwambaugh 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the timeline proposal. The "Chinese Protein Scandal" split sounds fine but maybe "Chinese protein import scandal" is more accurate at this point. --Tsiaojian lee 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to mention that those section numbers may be out of date given the changes made to repair the TOC. Apologies. As far as the split goes, I have no problem with what more wiki savvy people decide. My one concern is that we don't get into a situation where multiple pages need to be updated with same info. Right now, I am adding brief mentions of relevant current info to melamine and cyanuric acid. Abby Kelleyite 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Chinese protein export scandal" since multiple countries have imported the product? Jfwambaugh 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below regarding other chinese exported ingredient scandals for new info. Abby Kelleyite 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious cat food in China in 2006

Here is another old piece of news that may be of interest. Between 2005 and 2006, cat owners in Beijing noticed illness and death after the cats were fed with a cheap domestic brand of kibble. The prominent symptom of the affected cats was also kidney failure. Preliminary analysis showed elevated level of lead in the suspected food. There appears to be no official follow-ups. Do you guys think belongs to the main article? --Tsiaojian lee 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the timing and the kidney problems, I believe mention is appropriate with clear statemen that no evidence/questioning of melamine poisoning has been raised. Abby Kelleyite 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of pet deaths

I renamed the current Symptoms section to Impact on pets with a Numbers and a Symptoms subsection, partly so we can more easily update the numbers of reported pet deaths (now 8500) without having to rewrite the lead section. If someone else wants to take a shot at rewriting that lead section to say something generic like "thousands" and "unknown" because no central reporting (and also make mention of no reported human illnesses yet wherever appropriate) I'd appreciate it. I'd be Wikipedia:BOLD, but I'm too distressed at the moment.) Abby Kelleyite 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good reorganization. I took a stab at writing a single revised paragraph since we have harder numbers. Jfwambaugh 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Melamine cyanuric acid crystals and science info

It's buried in the article, but I thought it might be useful to put the cite to the Guelph crystals and regular updates.

Two other places to look for relatively authoritative science info: MSU DCPAH and Cornell CVM. Abby Kelleyite 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to get ahold of some those images to replace the relatively obtuse chemical models we have now. I don't see any contact info for the researchers and don't want to deal with university PR people though. Jfwambaugh 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that. I'm pretty sure you'd have to through the university contact info re the copyright permissions. They might very well be willing to license use (e.g. Guelph photos up on Cornell site) but when I tried, briefly, to look into this, Wiki appears to require a particular GNU photo copyright license that I highly doubt the universities would allow as it appears tantamount to surrendering the copyright. Anyone willing to look into this further would have my thanks. Abby Kelleyite 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the drawing showing interactions via hydrogen bonding is at least an improvement. And we have some more places to look for authoritative science data. University of Georgia and Colorado State University Abby Kelleyite 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pet food recall

I thought someone would change it back themselves, but I am now voting to remove the redirect for for North America pet food recall and make it the tittle of this article, since the 2007 seems pretty useless.Does anyone object or considers something else? Rodrigue 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "2007 Pet Food Recalls" has some support right now. I agree with it because there will be other pet food recalls and there are recalls in Europe and South Africa in addition to North America. Jfwambaugh 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the title to just the recalls, as discussed previously here, is not a good idea as the overall scope of the topic far outweighs just the recall issue. And when the article is split up, the overall scope still won't change, as all of the sub-article topics still stem from the central contamination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to negotiate with 2007 north american pet food recall, but does anyone really support pet food crisis other than the person who created it? calling something a "crisis" is just over-emphasism, and I would like if anyone atleast votes to just change it to something, anything besides that. Rodrigue 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... did you bother to read Talk:2007_pet_food_crisis/Archive1#Separate_Article_on_China.3F or the justification from AbbeyKellyite on your talk page? It's not just me, the big bad monster evil guy after all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, I did read that page before, but that does not change anything, the name is still not good at all.It doesn't metter anyway, all I am doing is proposing a new name for the article, you surely can't be against that.Its not like I changed it without discussing it first,right. Rodrigue 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that we are the number one google response on "pet food crisis". While I don't really love "crisis", myself, it seems to be being picked up widely as a way to denote all the events growing out of the pet food recalls. Yhe major competitor is "pet food scandal". In retrospect, I might have chosen "scandal" as being a little less alarmist, but I didn't think of it at the time. I see no compelling reason to change now, and given that a lot of traffic is coming here via the cureent name, I see no compelling reason to change the name at this time. Abby Kelleyite 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing footnotes

Sung to the tune of an old english drinking song: "Where oh where have my footnotes gone, oh where oh where can they be..." Abby Kelleyite 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they were in the "Recall History" section. Should be able to retrieve them from that article. Jfwambaugh 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that he who broke that article out would do that. Common courtesy and all that. Abby Kelleyite

When you break up an article of this size, you need to be reeeeeaaaaallll careful to make sure refs don't break. Additionally, there needs to be sufficient context on the new page, and an appropriate summary on the existing one, neither of which has happened here, so I am reverting so that it can be done properly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tips at Wikipedia:Summary_style. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, the fixes had already begun when that revert hit. Jfwambaugh 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob, but someone will need to expand the summary and fix the issues at the new article too. The user who split it up has a history, as seen on their talk page, of mal-formed article splits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its better that the link stays this time.The article is intended to shorten the main one which is over 100 kilobytes and if you want to help fix it up then go ahaid.

Anyone who thinks the sub-article shouldn't be linked here other than Jeffrey O. Gustafson I'de be glad to hear why. Rodrigue 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see you all sometime later when this gets sorted out. Peace. Abby Kelleyite 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the timeline article should be finished before we start directing people there. I have finished making the references for the main article independent of those in the time line so that when the new article is ready we can just cut it out.Jfwambaugh 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to revert to the 19:41 version because the 20:08 version here had malformed references from the combined original refs mixed with your fixes. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A note on sub-articles

A particular editor seems to think I am against sub articles for this article. Quite the opposite, I am decidedly for them, although my thoughts on what they should be differ. Nevertheless, we should follow proper Wikipedia:Summary style when creating splits. Whoever splits the article up, is responsible for fixing references, writing a proper summary, and putting the proper context into the new article. Jfwambaugh, myself, and AbbyKelleyite have been working our asses off here, and we can't be held responsible to try and fix other people's errors. As we have seen, an improperly formed split causes huge problems for an article of this size, and improper splits, non-consensus splits, or random renaming will be reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeffrey. As I have said repeatedly, I have no position on how things should be organized in terms of number of articles (one works for me but if there are good wiki reasons for breaking things up that is fine with me) but I do have a position that they be organized ahead of time, people who are actively editing are warned, and that the many people who are coming to this site are not faced with numerous unsourced and therefore unverifiable statements after poorly executed major edits. Abby Kelleyite 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this particular user who committed the split here without discussion, has an awful habit of jumping onto pages, making a split, and forcing the regular editors of the article to fix the problems he created in terms of proper referencing or sticking to summary style. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Amilorine is bogus

Now this is hilarious. For details see Talk:Amilorine or my blog. Quotes of "amilorine and amiloride" from media outlets could be kept though, as proof of their professionalism ☺ --Tsiaojian lee 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That newspaper piece was troubling in a number of respects. My favorite was the mention that they were all metabolites produced by the animals after ingestion, but that they were present in the food itself. The later SciAm piece at least made mention of the possibility of bacterial metabolism. Abby Kelleyite 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MSM is noticing us, I think

I just received some email from David Barboza of the NYT, replying to some earlier email I'd sent him including my April 18 blog post Why we should all care about the pet food recalls. He says he's following up that chinese website lead (that has been in our article) and I sent him back some more email alerting him to the melamine synthesis info tying the waste product crystals he has been reporting on directly (at least chemically) to the crystals analyzed by Guelph, et al., though I expect he's seen it already. Keep up the great work all. Abby Kelleyite 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, great work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Keep raising questions, and if possible, perform additional research independent of MSM reporting. BTW Google Scholar is a pretty good source of scientific literature. --Tsiaojian lee 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)