Someone else read this

[mzteris]

with a stronger stomach than mine, please.

It's the NY Times Magazine piece on petfood and - well - I only skimmed it - and I think there are some truly awful things in there - and not just about pets - but about people nutrition, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. Its a sickly fascinating article....

It lightly traces the history of what we consider "pet" food to the modern day business. It also outlines how we know how well our pets are eating.

Some of it is interesting, like the whole local/orgainc/homemade pet food boom, other parts are infuriating, like the fact that Veterinary Medical Schools have to be sponsored with donations from pet food companies cause the government doesn't care about that kinda of research at all.

The medical procedure described in the beginning and end isn't as bad as it seems (haha), considering the alternative is killing the animal to find out if its diet is good/bad.

[mzteris]

2. that and the whole

"experiment" mentality.

It seemed like there were some "good parts" but it was very hard to get past the yuck factor for me.

I think you captured the essence quite well - "sickly fascinating".