Transcript from the Senate Hearing,
STUPAK: “I was surprised by your answer this morning, Mr. Henderson. If you take a look at the record and the timeline, March 15th was your first recall for all wheat gluten manufactured between Dec 3rd, 2006 to March 6th. March 24th was your second recall; you expanded to include additional dates. On April 5th, you had your third recall. On April 10th you had your fourth recall. So an immediate recall authority by the FDA would not have taken a month for you to recall your products. Correct?”
HENDERSON: “I would have to say that’s incorrect. The information that you’re looking on, the recall that took place relative to the date of March 16th, Menu Foods at that point in time did not know what the problem was.”
STUPAK: “Well, I’m not asking about the problem. My question was a recall, should, should we give the FDA the right to an immediate authority, and would it have made any difference. You said you didn’t think it would make any difference in this case, and yet the recall went on for about a month. I think an immediate recall authority for the FDA would have made a difference here.”
HENDERSON: “The, the recall that was initiated by Menu Foods and the, essentially as a result of following conversations with the FDA, we identified, this was the scope we’re proposing to do. Whether or not they might have come up with a different scope, that’s a valid point. They might have come up and said, recall more, or recall less.”
STUPAK: “But even before you - I don’t mean to be argumentative, here - even before you, at Menu Foods, and the FDA decided to recall, Iams had already told you they would no longer accept your product, and they were going to recall all food manufactured by Menu Food in, at the KS plant, right? So, really, IAMS was the first one to really start it, the ball rolling here that something was wrong. And I guess maybe what we’re getting at here is there’s also a corporate responsibility, instead of waiting for the FDA. If Iams, the pet food manufacturer sees a problem, and they’re recalling it, I would have hoped that the corporations would have done it without FDA authority. But even WITH FDA authority, if we could grant that to them, I think we could have maybe limited the scope of the harm caused throughout
our country.”
HENDERSON: “Well, again, relative to the facts as they actually transpired, the conversation that took place with Iams, they, they essentially shared some information with us. We got together the next day, and essentially in a, in a rather lengthy meeting, both parties exchanged what they knew. Being that individually there wasn’t enough information to, to draw conclusions. But together, it looked as from a circumstantial evidence perspective, as if we had the basis for a recall. They opted to recall, we went along. We announced first.”
STUPAK: “Iams sees the need for a recall, but almost two weeks before that, your own taste testing lab out of 20 animals, three died and six were dead That’s almost 50 percent; I would that would cause Menu Foods to be concerned and talk about a recall, or what’s going on here quicker, than wait until Iams forces the issue, and then the FDA, and on and on.”
Iams has now confirmed that account with us: That they would have launched their own recall if Menu hadn’t.
Ping!......
Wow. We know a boy whose family dog had puppies that all died in February. They were eating this dog food. (the puppies were part pit bull, but that’s irrelevant.) TEN PUPPIES. I doubt the boy’s family will report it.
Bump!