Killer Chicken Jerky, Made in China, and YOU

If you have pets, you have probably heard about the 'Chinese Chicken Jerky' fiasco, where over 360 dogs may or may not have been killed by jerky treats from China.

It's not a 'recall' yet, per se, but people are being warned to be cautious.

I am in the Pet Industry, and the words 'Made in China' have never been popular in the states, especially when it comes to anything a pet would put in it's mouth (treats, chews, toys, etc.).  I sell products that are made in China, but not a lot of them.  The treats I sell are made by an FDA-standards plant and have never been subject to investigation.

That said, 'China' is still a 4-letter word in the pet sector.

According to the FDA, there is still not enough direct evidence to link the chicken jerky to pet deaths, but consumers are taking action and treating the Chinese treats like they are recalled and deadly.

The following is a picture a friend sent me via Facebook, asking for clarification from an insider:

My advice?  If you're worried about safety, don't feed it.  Simple as that.

Better safe than sorry.  I personally only feed treats from the US and Canada.  Not because China is evil, it's because I choose to support local companies.

But I will say this:  Most of these under-investigation brands are 'big box' brands exclusively, meaning Petco, Petsmart, Walmart, Target and Grocery.

The product is not under recall, so no product is being pulled.  Essentially, the big chains don't give a damn unless they're being told by the government to pull product.

Independent Pet Stores?  It's off their shelves.  They don't want to be an indirect killer of dogs.  Again, better safe than sorry.

One of my Facebook friends that was huffing and puffing the loudest about 'deadly chicken' was called out.  By me.

Me:  Where do you buy your pet food?

Her:  Petco.  They have good stuff.

Me, laughing a little as I type:  They also stock X Y Z, brands under investigation for selling the 'deadly' jerky you just mentioned.

Her:  Ok, so??

Me:  They're not pulling the product.  They're still selling it, and don't give a fuck.  Now, if they're selling treats that can kill your dog, knowingly and carelessly, why in the blue hell are you buying your dog's food there????

(in minutes, she sent me a private message asking for a recommendation on what to feed and where to go... I laughed)

In short, these products are not officially deadly, but they are under severe suspicion.  Do you feed Chinese treats to your pet?  Do you buy food from retailers who don't pull controversial food, and refuse to stock it until they know it's safe?

Or are you like the FDA, waiting for that magical number of dead dogs before you finally give a damn?

A Small-Town Newspaper and the Polarization of Readers

I live in a small town and have to put up with a small-town newspaper.  I know that if I want real news of what's going on in the world I can't rely on The Post Register at all, but they still amuse me from time to time.

For being an unbiased, impartial newspaper, you'd be amazed how many religious-based articles there are.  Since this is an LDS-heavy area, they cater to Mormons even more than the Salt Lake Tribune does.

For example, the Post Register's Facebook page has 2 of their 4 most recent posts about Mormons.  One is talking about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir trying to reach out to the masses, and the other discusses how popular BYU-Idaho is getting.

The SLC tribune is much less Mormon-centric, even though the world sees Salt Lake as the Mormon-Mecca.  Their #6 most recent facebook article talks about Mitt Romney's representation of the LDS Church, and then you'd have to scroll through about 2 weeks worth of posts before finding something else religious.

So when I saw this comment-and-exchange between a reader and The PR on Facebook, I wasn't that shocked...  These are the comments about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir trying to become more mainstream:

I laughed.  Especially with the 'half our readers' quip from the newspaper.  On their website, they boast  a daily print circulation of about 22,000, targeting an area of over 230,000.  That's a 9.56% reach.

Comparatively, The Los Angeles times has about 53%.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch boasts a 57% reach.  Granted, those are both major metropolitan areas, but the greater Billings area compares to Eastern Idaho (population-wise), and the Billings Gazette has a 42% reach.

I know print is slowly dying, but The Post Register seems bent on helping it croak.  A yearly subscription would cost me about $3.35 a week, yet I could get the Los Angeles Times for about $2 a week.  Sense?  This makes none...

The comment above shows that by catering to one demographic, they're risking alienating everyone else in the process.  If half of your subscribers (11,000... ha) are LDS, ok.  I'm sure they want to know what's happening around the world as well, instead of what's going on in their own church.

I have news for you, Post Register.  They (Mormons) talk about themselves enough as it is.  They probably knew about the things you report on before you report on it...  Non-mormons don't care about the goings-on of the church, so you're essentially preaching to the choir (pardon the pun).

Even if you take away the Mormon-centric philosophy, the paper seems to have troubles with fundamentals as well:

Granted, I used to play 'Paperboy' on my Nintendo in the 80's.  I know how hard it is to throw the paper just right without breaking a window or getting chased by an old lady.  But still, if you have a Facebook be prepared to communicate and engage with Facebook.  "You should have called us" and "email was lost in the ether" are lame excuses, and I am glad you were called-out on it in a semi-public setting.

Do you come from a small town?  If so, do you have a newspaper as skewed and out of touch as this one?  Please share your stories below.  With luck, someone from the Post Register will read this and learn something...  (and, with luck, hire a new Marketing/PR Director)