The increase in ARF cases observed by Banfield included cases during the recall period (early Dec '06 - early March '07), but BEFORE the recall was even announced (on March 16).
In other words, their numbers were not related to any over-reactionary panic caused by the announcement of the recall. So your premise about the numbers being skewed by panic and over-reaction is false.
I'm all for a rational, logical, scientific perspective to be applied here. But we also need to keep each other in check when we apply false premises to our logic. Sometimes, many heads are better than one.
That’s certainly significant, though I can’t find any confirmation that the statistics actually include only cases before the recall was announced. There doesn’t seem to be anything on Banfield’s website about it. The date range you cite is the manufacture dates covered by the recall, which would be earlier than the sale dates, and earlier still than the dates of any significant amount of consumption. It’s pretty hard to evaluate statistical claims when so little detail is provided, so I’m still not inclined to put much stock in Banfield’s claimed conclusions. That could change, though, with more detail — both the exact date range they included in their study, and the date distribution of the increase in cases.
I’m also curious as to why they’re only reporting numbers for cats. Even if they only saw a statistically significant increase for cats, given all the publicity about dogs being affected too, you’d think they’d mention that (veterinary professional associations are reporting more cats than dogs affected but still a significant number of dogs, and the obviously unreliable self-reporting website is running about 50-50 dogs-cats). The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if maybe there’s some statistical cherry-picking going on. Perhaps they provided more detailed information to the FDA and other institutions. Weird that they don’t have anything about this statistical study on their website (or if they do, it’s very well hidden). Perhaps there’s just a bit of lag time between when they put out a press release, and when they post it on the press release section of their website. All the media mentions of this study seem to carry the same limited info.
I’m mildly wary of the degree to which Banfield has been using the recall as a marketing opportunity. http://www.drugnewswire.com/15263/ They’re a business, of course, and it’s not wrong to pursue profits, but there’s something a bit unsavory about launching competitive promotions based on a tragic situation like this. The press release at that link also mentions a charitable foundation they’ve set up, with funds earmarked for treatment of pets with illness related to the food recall, but that’s a mighty muddy slope, seeing as how even the major teaching/research hospitals who’ve put out information about their experiences with this have said they are unable to definitively tie most of the their specific renal failure cases to the food, even though they believe that many are indeed due to the food.
For the record, I will be putting zero stock in any alarmist claims about a sudden surge in renal failure cases in cats over the past week or two. There’s always a surge around Easter, due to the popularity of lilies as holiday decorations, and I’m afraid the annual ritual of spreading warnings about this has been largely wiped out by the pet food recall publicity. For the record, even the pollen can be toxic, so placing the plant or cut flowers out of the reach of kitty-nibbling isn’t enough, if the location allows pollen to fall where a cat can walk in it (and then diligently lick it off it’s paws when it washes).