Australians ONLY - Orijen users alert

I'm glad to see that people are fighting the government on this too. I read this post on another forum as well. Someone made the statement "It seems completely backwards to take holistic foods and then nuke them with radiation upon entry to the country." I completely agree with this.

I was reading up a bit about irradiation in Canada, and this site http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/...n/irrade.shtml says that there is a symbol that needs to be placed on irradiated foods. I have never seen this symbol in Canada (not sure why....irradiation if voluntary, not used on very many products, or maybe I just haven't paid enough attention), but was wondering if the Australian folks see this symbol on irradiated foods?

I am not aware of any symbols in Australia. I know that the term 'Treated with Ionzing Electrons" can be used at times to make it sound better.

Unfortunately Smokey, a beloved pet for 12 years lost his battle with the Orijen syndrome 2 days ago, leaving behind his best friend Ginger (Also affected) and his gutted and distraught Family.

RIP Smokey

Originally Posted by maxymia

Hi all. Above is a copy of an email written by the owner of a beautiful Blue Point Siamese cat affected by Orijen. This person is the instigator of our lobbying campaign to the Australian Government. We are asking for a full review of the Irradiation of Foods/Petfoods and labelling laws in Australia.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time cats in Australia have been affected in this way by consuming irradiated petfood. It has happened before in 2007 (the manufacturer covered it up and threatened litigation against anyone who spoke out) and it will happen again if we do not do anything about it.

I am calling for ALL CAT LOVERS to please help our campaign, by emailing your support for us to the recipients listed below, for the sake of all our feline friends. I believe that sitting back and letting this happen again is pure animal cruelty. Please help us in our bid to stop this cruelty once and for all. We owe this to our beautiful fluffy freinds that bring so much joy to our lives.

If irradiation of petfoods is banned in your country let the Australian Government know. If you feel with all the evidence that irradiating petfoods is cruelty to animals then let our Government know. PLEASE help us help our cats in Australia

The Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forrestry - Australian Government
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=DYW

Ms Annemaree Lonergan, Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive - CSIRO
http://www.directory.gov.au/osearch....DAU&changebase (2nd name on this page)

Dr Martyn Jeggo, Director of the Australian Animal Health Laboratory - CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/people/Martyn.Jeggo.html (look on the right hand side of page under Primary Contact)

Dr Peter Daniels, Assistant Director & Theme Leader Diagnosis, Surveillance & Response Australian Animal - CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/people/Peter.Daniels.html (look on right hand side of page under Primary Contact)

Dr. Colin Grant, Cheif Executive of Biosecurity Australia - Biosecurity Australia
http://www.directory.gov.au/osearch....DAU&changebase

The email addresses for the people listed below can all be found here
http://itchmoforums.com/news-recall-...t6985.720.html ( reply # 733)

Mr Rob Delane, Deputy Secretary & Executive director of Operations - AQIS
Mr Peter Liehne, Branch Manager of Plant Quarantine & Biologicals - AQIS
Mr Robert Langlands, National Manager, Cargo Management & Shipping - AQIS
Mr Graham Turner, General Manager, Compliance & Investigations branch - AQIS
Dr Mark Cloney, National Manager, Quarantine Decision Support Branch - AQIS

Please help.

In memory of the gorgeous Tito, Hunter, Jamba, Minka, Ollie, Robbie, Coco, Leo, Titus, Biscuit, Armani, Bobby, and all the sweet little kitties that have so sadly left us for the rainbow bridge due to the ignorance of many. May they forever be at peace

Click to expand...

I would also like to add Smokey to the above list. You can move freely now. RIP Smokey

A major victory today - albeit a partial one - as the Australian Government orders an immediate halt to the irradiation of imported cat food.

Why only a partial victory?

Dr Child (Georgina Child, the Veterinary Neurologist who discovered the link between Orijen and the illnesses) said the move was welcome but did not go far enough. The irradiation ban is not being extended to imported dog food, leaving cats with access to such food still at risk.

Click to expand...

In fact, numerous Australian cats who had only snacked on irradiated Orijen dog food were stricken to the same degree as cats fed Orijen Cat.

While hopes are that the irradiation ban will be extended to all pet foods, today's news represents a massive victory for a small group of cat "owners" who, for the past seven months have relentlessly lobbied government ministers and bureaucrats for this change. Congratulations to all of them - several of whom have posted here and in the other thread.

Originally Posted by BLAISE

A major victory today - albeit a partial one - as the Australian Government orders an immediate halt to the irradiation of imported cat food.

Why only a partial victory? In fact, numerous Australian cats who had only snacked on irradiated Orijen dog food were stricken to the same degree as cats fed Orijen Cat.

While hopes are that the irradiation ban will be extended to all pet foods, today's news represents a massive victory for a small group of cat "owners" who, for the past seven months have relentlessly lobbied government ministers and bureaucrats for this change. Congratulations to all of them - several of whom have posted here and in the other thread.

Click to expand...

hummm only cat I guess dogs dont count

Irradiated dog food to be labelled - to be formally announced on AQIS website

To read formal letter from AQIS re cat food irradiation ban and the move to label irradiated dog food as unsuitable for cats please follow link below:

http://www.box.net/shared/s1q3dafghc
_________________

Hi
I have been re-reading all the posts on the two threads on this forum relating to the Australian Orijen recall.

I am aware that there a strong supporters of Champion on this site and that many of you feed Orijen to your cats with satisfaction.

I am also aware of the call for firm evidence or legal action before further posts blaming Champion were made and that there was a body of opinion that favoured legal action or perhaps let's say "blame", for the sake of shorthand simplicity, being directed at the Australian Government and/or the irradiation facility.

Speaking for myself, I do not hold the Australian Government blame-free and while I welcome the cessation of cat food irradiation I believe it should be extended to dog foods and all pet treats and also believe the labelling as "Unsuitable for cats" which is intended for irradiated dog food is woefully inadequate. I believe I speak for many other affected cat owners here too as I am in contact with quite a few of them in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia.

To this end I am (and I believe others are also) continuing to lobby for the extension of the ban as a best case scenario and at least for more comprehensive labelling of irradiated dog food to spell out its dangers for cats. I am also obtaining other information regarding how/why the 50kGy level was adopted and should have this to hand shortly. And I will pursue that avenue once I have it.

So having given some balance (I hope) and understanding of where I at least stand on this issue and though I can't speak for everyone, I do know of several others who are in agreement with me, I am posting some links to information released under the Australian Freedom of Information Act.

I am posting the links below to the three online storage facility files where the documents may be opened and downloaded:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/ahh0..._under_FOI_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/ahhh..._questions_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/ahhh...dural_docs_pdf

I have read through all the information here several times now. From the documents it is clear that the Australian Government gave the importer as much information and clear direction as possible to make their own investigations with regard to the suitability of the irradiation process on the product. The importer says he will confer with the manufacturer, then comes back a week later in an email to the Australian Quarantine assessment officer saying that the manufacturer agrees to the process and the costs.

And a choice was given, to not go ahead with the application if not wished.
Which gives the lie to their claim on their March 10 release "Was Champion given a choice whether to irradiate" and the simple answer "NO"
Perhaps they weren't given the choice directly and perhaps their importer, having invested that much time effort and money in setting himself up to be the distributor, wanted to see some return on that investment and kind of omitted to tell them. However, Champion could still have pulled the plug on it if they'd wanted to.

It therefore seems rather strange that the manufacturer should be claiming all along that they did not realise their food would be irradiated and that the first they knew of the irradiation was when they were presented with the invoices by their importer which they found surprisingly expensive. Presumably they didn't find out what the costs would be beforehand either.

It was only after the effects began showing up in the cats that investigations were made by testing Orijen's nutrient levels pre irradiation and running some through Canadian irradiation facilities to test post irradiated (Peter Muhlenfeld posted this on the thread started by Rosella about her cats Gus and Maurice - worth mentioning here that Rosella has now lost Gus to this devastating disease and she is heartbroken)

I think if Champion had run these tests ahead of agreeing to having their biologically appropriate/fresh ingredient as nature intended food nuked they would have seen the depleted Vitamin A and so forth that they made such a big song and dance about on their website releases, they would have thought twice about subjecting their food to this procedure.

Instead of that they did the tests after

In a conversation I had with Peter Muhlenfeld the night my cat was diagnosed as having contracted the condition, I said to him that I didn't think it was the sort of process a company making a holistic, biologically appropriate product would want applied to their food. "You know - you're right! why would we want that!" he exclaimed, in a voice that suggested to me he hadn't thought of that angle before.

I spent an hour and fifteen minutes on the phone with him. From his early demeanour in the phone call at the beginning right to the end, I wasn't really convinced. These documents support that conclusion.

While there are no emails directly from Champion to Aust Quarantine, it seems hard to believe that his importer would have made the decision on his own and just pretended to have kept Champion in the loop, he was back and forth getting further information relating to ingredients and processing the whole way through, why would he have stopped communicating at that point?

I don't think he did. I think he asked them and they didn't take more than five working days to think about it. What this hasty decision has cost Champion in lost revenue, partial-compensation payouts (20 or so of us are still fighting for full compensation), the cost of employing a loss management agency in Sydney to handle all the claims, the cost of one of their customer service people spending much of her time dealing with enquiries (and rather slowly I might add) lost credibility, and lost time in "aggressively monitoring" internet and media coverage of the issue so they can warn reporters and cat owners off adverse comment, they could have spent on some proper due diligence ahead of subjecting their really quite good kibble to a process they knew nothing about. This much they have admitted, that their error was in not investigating fully beforehand.

Says it all, really.

Just one more thing. They use a rendering plant as a supplier for some of the content of Orijen. The name is on one of the documents, you can google them and read about how they derive their product. Not really compatible with their claims of fresh food as nature intended.

I believe that until this matter is settled in a court of law and documents are presented in evidence, it is still a matter of "he said, she said". Anyone can come up with arguments supporting their thoughts but the actual docuuments presented as evidence are the only arguments I personally will believe.

These are the documents (part of) that would be tendered as evidence in a court of law.

Until it is ruled on in court I'll refrain from laying blame. After all, we are not privy to court documents for a case that hasn't been to court yet. Besides, to do so would be considered slander and we have no way of knowing if all that information is real or not.

I agree that it might be wise to see what the courts decide - and have full transcripts to read.

I do understand that some Australian folks have very emotional reactions to all this because they lost beloved pets, but that's no reason to run a company down in other countries that don't have the same issues with the product and particularly since nothing has been proven in court. Most, if not all, of the information I've seen so far is conjecture and presumption based on information floating about the internet. That doesn't present a good argument to my way of thinking. I like to have the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Some comments on here give the appearance that posters have not opened those pdf files and read the documents.

There are three files.

One contains correspondence between the applicant and the Australian government department in relation to an application for the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The government correspondence describes the process and timeframes to the applicant.

The second document contains all the paperwork released under the Freedom of Information Act relating to the application for import licence by the Australian importer, correspondence between the importer and the Australian Quarantine Department, certificates of origin of the foods ingredients, including non-Canadian origin ingredients including rendered product (this is a product advertised as being made from fresh locally sourced ingredients) manufacturing flow charts and ingredient lists the government has partially deleted (with the reasons why given in file No 1 and again in file no 3) and the Quarantine Assessment Officer's reasons for offering gamma irradiation as an option for sterilisation of the food, the disclaimers by the government and recommendation to seek 3rd party advice/do own research, the emails from the importer advising he has discussed with the manufacturer and they agree to the irradiation and the costs.

The third file contains searching questions by the applicant for further information and clarification, a request for review, correspondence from the government explaining the review process, the results of the review and an additional letter addressing the applicant's questions the review did not cover.

If these aren't genuine then someone has spent an inordinate amount of time faking government letterhead, names, telephone numbers, emails, flow charts, paperwork from 3rd parties such as Griffin Industries (who render down road kill, condemned cattle, waste bakery products, grease trap sludge for a variety of end uses including pet food manufacture), and put themselves at risk of legal action and prosecution by the Australian government, not to mention the 2rd parties whose company names are evident even if the individual employees names are deleted.


Government names and phone numbers are there for checking. The only one who cannot be reached now is Peter Liehne the former manager of the plant biologicals section as he has gone overseas to work.

I have had extensive dealings with some of these government public servants myself in relation to the irradiation process and the ban on its use for cat foods so I can vouch for the authenticity of their names. The email addresses are there for checking. They will not give out information in relation to the FOI documents I believe, unless the enquiry comes from the applicant, other than to confirm their authenticity. It would seem from the dates on the correspondence that the process took some six months.

Now that the applicant has placed them in the public domain they are there for anyone to reference and authenticate.

Suggesting they are invalid without oneself checking their authenticity is itself slanderous against the applicant/original poster of the docs - whether it is one and the same person is not clear.

A personal message to the original poster might help to confirm that and I am sure they might be very interested to know that their own integrity is being thrown in doubt publicly when all they have done is seek to assist by making these documents available to the public. Personally I am grateful to them for doing so and I will use them wisely.

Incidentally - the rules at the bottom of the posting page, "No flaming, No negative site feedback, No spam" = does that "No negative site feedback" just apply to this site or any site?

I don't get why this issue is coming up again... Didn't we go through that already, over and over again?
I am with Yosemite on this - let's see what the court RULINGS/verdicts are, then we go back to it? Or what do you propose us to do? Where do you want to get? To boycott Orijen?
Because the issue never existed outside of Australia, the product has been taken out of Australia's shelves, so this issue will no longer happen in the future...
So, what are you looking for exactly? I understand about the issue with irradiation; but about Orijen specifically - what are you trying to achieve?

Originally Posted by carolinalima

I don't get why this issue is coming up again... Didn't we go through that already, over and over again?
I am with Yosemite on this - let's see what the court RULINGS/verdicts are, then we go back to it? Or what do you propose us to do? Where do you want to get? To boycott Orijen?
Because the issue never existed outside of Australia, the product has been taken out of Australia's shelves, so this issue will no longer happen in the future...
So, what are you looking for exactly? I understand about the issue with irradiation; but about Orijen specifically - what are you trying to achieve?

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better! I feed Orijen and Acana both and Bijou is alive and very well. The company is Canadian so I will support them by buying their product. When and if our government starts using irradiation then I'll have to rethink this issue.

It's not up to us decide whether legal blame should be put on the company and they should be required to compensate those who suffered losses due to this tragedy. While I very much feel for those who lost pets or whose pets' health was compromised, I am not going to stop feeding a very good food from a Canadian company because of something that happened only in one country, due to that country's policies for importing food. If the product had not undergone the process of irradiation, there would have been no problems. Since the food in not irradiated here, I am not personally concerned about the well-being of my cats being fed that food. I can completely understand those affected not wanting to feed the food ever again themselves (if it were available and the problem with irradiation was solved), but there really is no reason for me not to feed it. If Champion Foods made a mistake and is therefor legally responsible, that judgement and the repercussions will be made by the court. Knowing this, I have no moral qualms about feeding it and supporting their company by purchasing their product.

As for the rendering plant, please let me know which file the name is in, or post the name of it here, as I would be interested reading more information about that particular point.

Originally Posted by zoeysmom

It's not up to us decide whether legal blame should be put on the company and they should be required to compensate those who suffered losses due to this tragedy. While I very much feel for those who lost pets or whose pets' health was compromised, I am not going to stop feeding a very good food from a Canadian company because of something that happened only in one country, due to that country's policies for importing food. If the product had not undergone the process of irradiation, there would have been no problems. Since the food in not irradiated here, I am not personally concerned about the well-being of my cats being fed that food. I can completely understand those affected not wanting to feed the food ever again themselves (if it were available and the problem with irradiation was solved), but there really is no reason for me not to feed it. If Champion Foods made a mistake and is therefor legally responsible, that judgement and the repercussions will be made by the court. Knowing this, I have no moral qualms about feeding it and supporting their company by purchasing their product.

As for the rendering plant, please let me know which file the name is in, or post the name of it here, as I would be interested reading more information about that particular point.

Click to expand...

Zoeysmom, thank you for some understanding, now if you re-read my previous posts you will see I quoted the name of the rendering company.
If you can take the time to read the government paperwork you will see what I am talking about.

I get the impression few on here have actually read the documents.

I'm not talking about Orijen.
I'm not suggesting people stop buying it.
I have never said anything of the sort - now readers are taking inferences from what I have written that are not there, there is an assumption or judgement being made about me or my message. Pots and black kettles spring to mind.

Since you ask me to clarify:
I am saying that the manufacturer's story all along has been at variance with what the government released documents say.

Further they have claimed credit in emails to us for getting catfood irradiation banned here and the government have confirmed to me they did not have any communication with the manufacturer when making their decision to cease catfood irradiation. In fact the Minister's letter to me thanks me for my input in providing scientific information that assisted in his decision and explains how the decision was arrived at.

Further they have claimed credit for posting results of pathology tests done here by Australian vets who requested reimbursement for same, particularly as the manufacturer gave the appearance of using the results to shore up their reputation in media announcements. They would not pay all of the costs, in the same way that they are not paying all of the costs for treatment for the affected cats, and they are ignoring emails and phone calls.

The veterinarians and the affected owners are all disappointed and/or disgusted with the cavalier way we have been treated, lied to, and misled.

That's what the message is. Good food maybe, bad decisions definitely, questionable ethics in advertising and customer service.

Good luck if you ever have anything go wrong with them.

Thank you for your time and input.

Originally Posted by The Cats Mother

Zoeysmom, thank you for some understanding, now if you re-read my previous posts you will see I quoted the name of the rendering company.
If you can take the time to read the government paperwork you will see what I am talking about.

I get the impression few on here have actually read the documents.

I'm not talking about Orijen.
I'm not suggesting people stop buying it.
I have never said anything of the sort - now readers are taking inferences from what I have written that are not there, there is an assumption or judgement being made about me or my message. Pots and black kettles spring to mind.

Since you ask me to clarify:
I am saying that the manufacturer's story all along has been at variance with what the government released documents say.

Further they have claimed credit in emails to us for getting catfood irradiation banned here and the government have confirmed to me they did not have any communication with the manufacturer when making their decision to cease catfood irradiation. In fact the Minister's letter to me thanks me for my input in providing scientific information that assisted in his decision and explains how the decision was arrived at.

Further they have claimed credit for posting results of pathology tests done here by Australian vets who requested reimbursement for same, particularly as the manufacturer gave the appearance of using the results to shore up their reputation in media announcements. They would not pay all of the costs, in the same way that they are not paying all of the costs for treatment for the affected cats, and they are ignoring emails and phone calls.

The veterinarians and the affected owners are all disappointed and/or disgusted with the cavalier way we have been treated, lied to, and misled.

That's what the message is. Good food maybe, bad decisions definitely, questionable ethics in advertising and customer service.

Good luck if you ever have anything go wrong with them.

Thank you for your time and input.

Click to expand...

I understand your feelings on this issue but it still confuses me as to why it keeps surfacing with links and information for us all to read when as far as I am concerned, until it goes to court and a decision is handed down by the courts as to who did what or who didn't do what, this revisiting the issue is pointless.

My understanding is that there was a problem with Orijen only in Australia and that only in Australia is irradiation used. No other country had a problem as far as I know so bringing this issue up all the time on a worldwide forum really doesn't have any meaning until there is a ruling by the courts who will have valid documentation upon which to make a ruling and then, of course, we will all be interested in hearing and knowing about.

I personally believe Champion's biggest mistake was trying to distribute a quality food to Australia after being told of the irradiation issue. They should have just declined to supply that country with their product and there would have been no issue.

I will say that I have not read the documents. I TRIED to read one, but I found it very jargony, and out of context for myself, who has only followed this story on the surface.

While the documents very likely are authentic, there is a great deal of interpretion to be had from them. The fact is none of these are direct communication from Champion stating that they, themselves, knew of the irradiation requirement. The importer could have been telling the truth, or he could have been lying. You said this yourself. I don't understand how they could have "pulled the plug" had they not known about it. Yes, had they known, they could have. But I have seen no proof that they did. This is just an example of how interpretations can and have been made, not a defense of the company. I do not know enough to determine who was in the wrong here.

I completely understand why those affected should have all the facts, and completely support their seeking out these facts and having them judged on a legal front. Once that judgement has been made, please, come back and tell us what the decision was so that we can then base our opinions of the company on that.


As for your customer service complaints, thank you for the warning. While I am hesitent to defend a company to people who have been so devastated and are looking for compensation, I do think that ANY company facing legal action would be advised by their legal team to be careful about how they are communicating regarding the issue. I also don't know that Champion should be wholely responsible for compensating the families who lost pets. Perhaps they believe that the government, who are the ones who actually require this treatment of the food (the fact that it is a requirement, means, to me, there should be onus on the government to run tests to make sure that the process is safe on the foods they are requiring it of), should be providing some of this compensation.


Since you say that you are not telling people not to feed Champion Foods, I will heed your warnings about their "questionable ethics in advertising and customer service" and continue feeding the food, mainly because my cats do very well on it and I do believe it is one of the best manufactured foods out there (even considering the rendered ingredients). I will hope for the best for all the Australian pets and pet owners who have been affected and await for the courts to make their decisions. As for any future warnings/information that comes out on this board, I'm going to assume that they are for any Australians out there who may have been affected by this tradgedy. Except those that have given the warnings, I have not seen any on these boards, but perhaps they are some lurking who will indeed benefit from the information you have provided.

I don't get why this issue is coming up again... Didn't we go through that already, over and over again?...

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Yosemite

...it still confuses me as to why it keeps surfacing with links and information for us all to read when as far as I am concerned, until it goes to court and a decision is handed down by the courts as to who did what or who didn't do what, this revisiting the issue is pointless...

bringing this issue up all the time on a worldwide forum really doesn't have any meaning until there is a ruling by the courts...and then, of course, we will all be interested in hearing and knowing about

Click to expand...

The Cat's Mother has simply posted an update to this story...that update being that new documentation has been discovered and is now in the public domain.


Frankly, Yosemite, my own preference is that, rather than presuming to speak for others in this community (TCS)

we will all be interested

Click to expand...

we would each speak for ourselves on such issues.

...The company is Canadian so I will support them by buying their product.

Click to expand...

I will...continue feeding the food, mainly because my cats do very well on it and I do believe it is one of the best manufactured foods out there (even considering the rendered ingredients).

Click to expand...

We each have our reasons for choosing a particular food for our cats. I personally spent an anxious couple of days after reading that some of the ingredient was sourced from an American rendering facility. What I did appreciate was that the information had been posted - so I could then persue the matter further.