Non Species Specific Furkid Topics > Reaching One Furkid Parent At A Time...

Why Confused Consumers Feed Their Pets Ring Dings And Krispy Kremes

(1/3) > >>

Lola:

--- Quote ---Americans own more than 130 million cats and dogs and spend over $12 billion per year on commercial pet foods. The commercial pet food industry faces minimal substantive regulation, despite navigating several layers of regulation from various groups including the FDA, the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), and state regulators. The FDA entrusts AAFCO to issue regulations governing ingredients, feeding trials, labels and nutritional claims. But AAFCO’s rules fall short of ensuring that America’s pets receive adequate nutrition, or even foods that won’t cause chronic digestive, skin, eye, and coat problems. The influence by the pet food industry over AAFCO manifests itself through AAFCO’s irrational regulations, including ingredient definitions which effectively prohibit organic chickens and vegetables, while blindly permitting thousands of euthanized cats and dogs to make their way into pet foods through the unsupervised rendering industry. Trusting, but uneducated, consumers purchase these commercial pet foods under the assumption that the FDA or some other regulatory body has ensured that the foods contain “balanced” meals, and “complete” nutrition. These consumers naively believe veterinarians that endorse and sell pet foods from their offices while neglecting to mention that these “pet doctors” are often “on the take” and can earn up to 20% of their total income from such sales. This paper will examine the ways in which inadequate regulation results in confused consumers and sick, malnourished pets. Ultimately this paper seeks to reveal that multiple parties, including consumers themselves, share the blame for the current muddled state of regulation.
--- End quote ---

More...
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html

The above link no longer works, but this one does! 
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10018997/Patrick06.pdf?sequence=1

FurMonster Mom:
Dear Lordy...

I'm sorry, but is it any wonder that people are not willing to learn when papers are written like this?

Dry, wall of text full of overlong sentences without punctuation (or overly punctuated), using words that most folks would find tedious, at best.

The meat of the matter gets lost in the gobbledy-gook of too many compound sentances and prepositional phrases.  And, the flow of thought meanders amidst paragraphs that should be broken into more compact and efficient bites.
  bangshead
This thing needs a serious editorial overhaul. 
ugh.  sorry.   2cents

Lola:
I purposely only posted the first paragraph, so people's minds wouldn't be totally blown by all the facts and info coming at them all at once.

The info was sooooo dead on and informative, that I didn't give the the writing style and such any thought.  But... I tend to be a rambler as well.   ;D
There were so many things I wanted to highlight, but I would have ended up highlighting it all! 

The part I quoted was just her "abstract."  The entire paper can be found at the link I posted.  GOOD read. 

CarnivorousCritter:
OK I hate to admit this but it was clear & concise, IMO.  But of course this is subjective.

But good point made, it's true that people today wouldn't get through the first paragraph. #1 it's not texted and #2, there's no such thing as news Journalism anymore. What people are hearing and reading via the mediums is today's "puppy attention-span version", not what us old-schoolers were brought up with.    :(

A journalist used to be required to be thorough, leave no stone unturned.   

FurMonster Mom:

--- Quote from: Lola on July 28, 2011, 08:28:47 PM --- The entire paper can be found at the link I posted.  GOOD read.  

--- End quote ---

Oh, I went to the link.

The information was there... but it took some serious word-wading.

Informative read... sure.
Good Read... not so much.  
Shakespeare is easier to read.

That's my point.  Most people wouldn't be able to wade through the first paragraph of that paper... and that's supposed to be the paragraph that should pull the reader in.

This was obviously written by a smart, intelligent person who has lots of good information to share.  But the delivery of the information is just as important, if not more so.  If nobody is willing to wade through the ocean of verbiage, the delivery fails.  It's a trap that a lot of scholars fall into, and it's the reason editors exist.

.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page