Purina Organic Starter/Grower Ingredients :-/

[ChickenCanoe]

True, but without a high cost of living and some inconveniences paradise would be even more overrun with haole like me.

I think that's why the roads are not improved in Costa Rica. It keeps the riff raff out.

 

[raingarden]

I think that's why the roads are not improved in Costa Rica. It keeps the riff raff out.

Besides, "quaint" sells.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

Besides, "quaint" sells.

So true. Besides being the most biologically diverse place on the planet.
A country the size of West Virginia with more species of butterflies than the continent of Africa, In MO, we have 1 species of hummingbird for half the year. CR has 52 species.
On the ring of fire, CR has 5 active volcanoes, so the landscape continues to grow and evolve before our eyes. An American whitewater outfitter told me that new rivers have emerged in the 40 years she had been working there.

 

[Perris]

a lot of us still would like to know what we would be feeding our babies, and essentially ourselves.

Another of the downsides to ingredients not being listed accurately and recognizably is this
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rks-found-in-cat-and-dog-food-dna-study-shows

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Another of the downsides to ingredients not being listed accurately and recognizably is this
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rks-found-in-cat-and-dog-food-dna-study-shows

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No one in their right mind is going to make commercial cat and dog food out of shark farmed on rod and reel. The shark content is the by-catch, unwanted species caught up in the trawl lines and gill nets dragged behind boats seeking massive catches of bottom dwelling whitefish species at the cheapest possible price. As the catch isn't intended for human consumption, they need be less discriminating in removing unintended species from the nets.

This is also occuring in a country whose feed and fishing regulations are generally much more "permissive" than yours or ours.

 

[Perris]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

you are always quick to make assertions like this. Which ones exactly did you want to raise here?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

you are always quick to make assertions like this. Which ones exactly did you want to raise here?

The article is written to suggest a narrative that protected and endangered shark species are being targeted, and that their presence is being "hidden" behind a generic label. They aren't.

The article started with a true thing - shark DNA in cans of products containing generic "fish" [qoute] Scientists found that several brands contained endangered species but listed only vague ingredients such as “ocean fish”, meaning that consumers are often oblivious.[/quote], and then proverbially "jumped the shark" to an unsupported conclusion

Besides the lucrative trade in shark fins, shark meat is generally quite low value, Griffiths said, and could be a cheap source of protein. “Lots of people don’t want to eat it,” he said. “So you can’t necessarily sell it through other supply chains. It surprises people that these things can turn up on their pet’s plate.”

in order to advance a preferred policy recommendation.

More responsible reporting would note that they are an unintended byproduct of the fishing method, which is why some of the more responsible countries of the world have, in the past decades, either banned or greatly curtailed, those fishing methods. An even more responsible article would talk about alterntive ways to farm whitefish - either with deepwater cages, or with long lines anchored to the bottom (which ALSO catch a lot of inintended species), and compare costs, so one could weigh the risks and benefits.

I'm quick to do so because I read critically, and because narrative-driven media is so widespread. That's true whether its the Guardian, the WaPo, the Grey Lady, LA Times, the WSJ, Bloomberg, Politico, Reason, or a host of others. I will credit Guardian for at least putting the bias of the researchers on display,

“The majority of pet owners are likely lovers of nature, and we think most would be alarmed to discover that they could be unknowingly contributing to the overfishing of shark populations,” said the study authors, Ben Wainwright and Ian French, of Yale-NUS College, Singapore.

 

[Perris]

The article is written to suggest a narrative that protected and endangered shark species are being targeted

I don't think that is true at all. You are not the only one to read critically. I did it for a living.

 

[Perris]

And you are distracting from the point of the article and this thread, about accurate and complete labelling.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

And you are distracting from the point of the article and this thread, about accurate and complete labelling.

and you are assisting with an article about trace amounts of shark DNA in Singapore's cat and dog food? Purina doesn't use animal by-products in their chicken feeds.

This is about Purina's labels, and the inability to find the ingredients list online.

Your offering is irrelevant as counting the number of roach bits and unidentifiable insect bits in, say, a can of tuna fish, or a container of coffee beans.