Donsherilyn Henderson - Comment

After some research into this topic, I have come to my personal opinion that this amendment should be approved for the following reasons: 1)Child food dye allergies – Children have been diagnosed with more and more food allergies in the past decade or so. Children may be exposed to the foods given to their pets and should be warned of the risk involved in handling or being exposed to the product. One may not know what their level of allergy is until it is too late. For some, a rash or perhaps respiratory problems, and death have even been the result in some cases. 2) The right to know – In general, consumers have the right to know what is in the products they are buying and consuming, whether it be for themselves, for their children, or for their pets. And for some people, pets are their children. The FDA would not deny a mother’s right to know what is in her child’s breakfast, so why would a pet lover not have the right to know what is in their pet’s meal? 3) Animals are not necessarily tested for allergies or intolerances as humans are. Basically they are just given food that their owner ‘thinks’ is (or will be) good for them. An owner may make an educated decision to stay away from an ingredient that holds a higher risk to a reaction based public notification or outbreaks from certain products. In conclusion, the bottom line is that animals have rights and they should be treat like humans. The have the right to a nutrients meal and the owners have the right to know what is in their animal’s food. I am not that fun of animals, but I believe that we owe it to them to feed them as best we can base on the knowledge we obtain through the manufacturers and governments that regulate.