The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has
posted an online FAQ
about the recent spate of Salmonella-related
petfood recalls
online FAQ. I for one
am glad to see it and especially gratified that the very first entry attributes
the rise in recent incidents to increased awareness, renewed vigilance by
petfood companies and regulatory authorities and the Food and Drug
Administration’s (FDA) Reportable Food Registry.
As AVMA explains, the registry “requires and allows
immediate reporting of safety problems with food and animal feed (including
petfood), instead of relying on inspection to identify problems.” The
veterinary organization concludes by stressing that the recent increase does
not mean petfoods are unsafe. “Considering that the majority of these recalls
have been precautionary and no illnesses have been reported, these recalls may
indicate that they are preventing illness by catching the problems earlier.”
Unfortunately, not everyone is taking such a reasoned, knowledgeable
approach to disseminating information on petfood, Salmonella contamination or recalls. Consider these headlines
screaming across the Internet in early August:
- “Fido’s food could be
making kids sick”;
- “Tainted petfood sickened
children”; and
- “Your pet’s food dish
could serve up Salmonella.”
These recalls may indicate that they are preventing illness by catching the problems earlier.Those are just a few examples from mainstream media about an
article in the journal Pediatrics based on a report from the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC). The report addressed Salmonella-related
petfood recalls from 2006-2008 and how in some of those cases—especially a
large recall in 2008 by Mars Petcare US—humans, including several children,
became ill from the Salmonella.
A nasty bacterium like Salmonella contaminating
petfood and spreading to humans is definitely cause for concern. And the CDC
report essentially verifying the link between the tainted petfood and the human
cases is newsworthy. But from the headlines posted everywhere on the Web, you
would think these were new cases and that children all across the US were
falling prey to their pets’ food.
Of course, this type of coverage is symptomatic of the
overall media culture these days—the need to fill a 24/7 news cycle with
constant headlines while fact, context and relevance take a backseat to speed
and volume. Some of you might argue that lack of depth or accuracy has followed
the petfood industry since the 2007 melamine-related recalls.
But let’s not overlook that much of the media coverage has
sprung from heightened interest by consumers, which started in part because of those
recalls and has not abated in the three years since. Pet owners are reading
labels and researching ingredients, asking veterinarians and retailers for
specific nutrition and product guidance and—perhaps most importantly—turning to
each other for information and advice. Some of the blogs and websites that
popped up during and just after the recalls were started by pet owners and are
still functioning with considerable consumer input, as are new ones.
This is happening in the human food world, too, so even pet
owners who aren’t as aware of or concerned about petfood recalls but who treat
their pets as family members (as most do now) are likely to scrutinize
ingredient labels of pet products as closely as they do for products for
themselves.
While the media’s lack of reporting and context makes them an easy punching bag, the industry needs to do its part.While the media’s lack of reporting and context makes them
an easy punching bag, the industry needs to do its part in meeting pet owners’
needs for information and communication. As Packaged Facts says, we’re
now “dealing with a much better informed consumer market whose days of being a
captive audience are indeed a thing of the past.”