I'm sorry if this has already been posted, I"m just now finding it but the story is a day old so I'm not sure. Anyhow:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/20/national/main2587087.shtml?source=mostpop_story
7 out of the 50 sample size died. It's actually a 40-50 sample size (it doesn't specify in the article) but that's a 14 - 17.5 percent chance that an animal would die while eating this food. You'd think that someone at the agency would have thought "hmm, maybe we shouldn't feed this to animals."
It's a shame that they put profit over the well being of the animals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/20/national/main2587087.shtml?source=mostpop_story
7 out of the 50 sample size died. It's actually a 40-50 sample size (it doesn't specify in the article) but that's a 14 - 17.5 percent chance that an animal would die while eating this food. You'd think that someone at the agency would have thought "hmm, maybe we shouldn't feed this to animals."
It's a shame that they put profit over the well being of the animals.