As the Senate holds the first federal hearing into the ever-growing pet food scandal at this hour, there seems to be an emergence of crisis denial.
Veterinarian Claudia A. Kirk, scheduled to testify before the Senate as of this writing, had a piece yesterday on Tennessean.com in which she tries to soothe pet parent fears based on the FDA's ludicrous official death count of "fewer than 20" - a number the FDA itself has acknowledged is incomplete. Kirk dismisses "anecdotal reports suggest[ing] the numbers will more likely be in the hundreds." Hundreds?
Kirk goes on: "The commercial products now on the grocery shelves are considered safe [really?]. We expect few, if any, additional recalls [really?]."
Few, if any, additional recalls. Kirk's piece is dated April 11, which means it was written no later than April 10 - the day of Menu Foods' latest recall expansion.
"For those needing extra peace of mind," Kirk advises, "avoiding products with wheat gluten could be considered for the next few weeks."
And for extra extra piece of mind, change your oil every 3000 miles, rather than 5000. It should horrify the pet parent community that this woman is at this moment testifying before the United States Senate.
Everyone's favorite "pet journalist," Steve Dale, filed a "news" article today declaring that, according to the FDA and the Banfield vet chain, "cases of death and illness among animals due to eating tainted pet food have greatly diminished."
But Dale offers no real evidence to back up this claim - only a recitation of casualty numbers released by Banfield. Other credible sources see those same numbers as a sign that tens of thousands of pets could be affected. Not only does Dale avoid such extrapolations, however, he virtually sounds the all-clear.
The good news is that reports of thousands of pets dying at Banfield hospitals because of poisoned food are false. The number of pet deaths nationwide may turn out to be in the hundreds, not thousands.
Even if he is right - and that would be good news - to say that "cases of death and illness among animals due to eating tainted pet food have greatly diminished" makes no sense. Does it mean reports of new cases are slowing? That existing cases have since gone away? Or that - based on Dale's non-calculations - most of the 3000+ people who have reported that their pets are dead or dying after eating recalled food are mistaken? Or does it mean they're liars?
Weeks ago, Dale went on NPR and poo-pooed the whole recall thing, dismissing online coverage as "sensationalized." Now that the recalls have been expanded again (and again, and again), his position doesn't seem to have changed.
On his web site, Dale writes: "Reports of confirmed pet death numbers are beginning to finally trickle out, as opposed to the ongoing rampant speculation by various sources."
Confirmed numbers are a useful tool, no doubt - and everyone wishes we had accurate official counts. But if not for "rampant speculation," how many more pets would have eaten contaminated food as the FDA stuck to its figures? How much press coverage would the crisis have earned? Would the U.S. Senate be holding a hearing today - a step Dale apparently approves of - if the public were satisfied with the "confirmed pet death numbers"?
And again, Mr. Dale, please explain the rampant, speculative death toll. All those stories. All those pictures. Is there a vast conspiracy against the pet food industry, propagated by individual pet parents across the nation? Again: Are they wrong, or are they lying?
And what about Paul Pion, founder of the Veterinary Information Network? At the end of March, Pion told the AP:
"I'm sure we haven't seen half the cases and if you double what we've seen, it's a thousand ... If we're only getting 10 percent of the veterinarians, you can do the math."
Well, some of us can.
Far from being an alarmist, Pion has taken pains to avoid hyperbole. But unlike other "experts," he is not in denial.
The fact is we don't know how many pets will eventually be affected by this mess, and we may never know. Nor do we know how many foods are actually contaminated, or how many will eventually be recognized as such and pulled from the market. Acknowledgment of these facts seems to be a key difference between the deniers and the rest of us.
No one wants anyone's cat or dog to get sick or die from contaminated food, and no one is intentionally trying to induce unwarranted panic. Personally, when it comes to the safety of my kids, I'll take caution - and even fear - over complacency any day. Complacency, after all, is what got us and our pets where we are.