More than a few times I encounter situations, posts, concepts where the misguided thought seems to be that products produced for animals and pets are also automatically safe for people.
They are not tested the same, there is less regard to quality, safety, allergic reaction, etc. An example is dog food, where cancerous and diseased meat not fit for human consumption is deemed just fine for Rover's dinner.
If the FDA declares something as "non-toxic" to people and as well says it is "not under their jurisdiction" when it comes to that compound's use on animals meant for consumption, that's not a declaration of support. That's saying a bit won't kill you, but no info on additional effects when misused.
The less subtle translation: Put down the farking water conditioner meant for use on fish.
It seems ridiculous to be all worried about chlorine and chloramine in your water.. and then add drops of Amquel into your soon to be fermenting batch of homemade fizzy fruit soda while touting how healthy it is.
Boil the water.. surprise, that will also get rid of chloramine. Vitamin C will also do the same trick. Option 3 is use distilled water. Need a multi-tasker just in case you also have to deal with a tear gas assault while you try to control quality of your brew? Grab some Campden tablets. (Why.. with all of those options.. would someone look for a solution in the pet aisle?)
Products on the market that are sold for use on non-humans are tested differently. Species react differently to the same substance. So while 1 product may not cause issues for Fido, it may be toxic to fish, amphibians, birds. Many companies may hide their formulas under proprietary laws. So while some ingredients are listed, rarely are all ingredients declared. Artistic licence in animal goods goes as far as announcing that cancerous mass derived from Bessie to be listed as a beef product.
If a product is not marketed for human use, and one uses/ consumes it with ill effects, the company producing this item is not liable. The FDA does not have your back as it is "out of their jurisdiction." The FDA can't keep up with lofty goals of inspecting major processing plants ONCE every FIVE years just for food intended for human consumption.
Roughly 2 months ago.. representatives for the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers recently spoke at a local meeting on water quality... and they declared the Atrazine in the underground water to be at safe levels. Less than 1/2 of "safe" dosages of Atrazine have been known to cause birth defects and act as endocrine disruptors. Yay. Although this kool-aid is within "safe" Atrazine range, please limit yourself to 1 as higher doses are linked to prostate and breast cancer. By the way.. if you live in a location where they send you annual water quality reports..... Atrazine, among several other contaminants, is something they don't even check to see if it is present. Our water, deemed "safe" for for drinking.. yet Europe's standards forced Atrazine to be banned from use and considered the water as contaminated several years ago.
Still think the regulations are the same? Only a week ago Maryland became the first state to ban arsenic in chicken feed. It is marketed as 3-Nitro (Roxarsone) and one of the first FDA approved arsenic based animal feeds (aka.. medicated feed. The arsenic is to help prevent coccidiosis, improve weight gain, feed efficiency, etc. Except this is the INorganic arsenic.. which IS the carcinogenic and more toxic form of arsenic.)
Whew! Well thank the lucky stars that the FDA finally completed testing in Dec. 2010 of something they have allowed to be used routinely since 1940, on an animal the average American consumes almost 60 pounds worth annually! The FDA has our back (sarcasm).. which is why they allowed the maker, AlPharma (subsidiary of Pfizer), to volunteer their assistance on hammering out a compromise. A reward for big AlPharma came not only in FDA praise, but as they opted to suspended sales of 3-Nitro all by themselves, the FDA let them continue selling other arsenic based medications meant for animals to be consumed by people. (feel free to wander the FDA site.)
"How does FDA regulate carcinogenic compounds used in food-producing animals?Under the Delaney Clause for new animal drugs of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA cannot approve any compound for use in food-producing animals where the drug or its metabolites has been found to induce cancer. There is an exception, commonly referred to as the DES proviso. The DES proviso carves out an exception to the Delaney Clause allowing cancer-causing compounds (or compounds with cancer-causing metabolites) to be used in food-producing animals if 1) the drug does not harm the animal and 2) tests approved by FDA do not detect residues of the drug in any food from the animal. The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act governs the withdrawal of approval of a new animal drug application, after due notice and an opportunity for hearing, where new evidence shows that the Delaney Clause applies."
Blind faith in an under-funded agency that panders to the mega-buck companies might not be the best idea (especially since they somehow find the funding to launch what amounts to repeated swat team style assaults on super small scale operations. I mean really.. I wonder what the price comparison is to set up safety protocol and means of pathogen testing raw milk vs the cost of these over the top raids.)
I don't think an individual has the time to research and vet out all the sources of health hazards we are now commonly exposed to even if they dedicate their entire life to it, but still, a bit of caution can go a long way.
If Pfizer seems a bit shady to you... it may just be because you know it's agricultural division.. Monsanto.