Lead?
Does that mean Made in China?

@I Love New Jersey: Wouldn't surprise me...

Gah. Too bad we have to pay $30/year subscription fee to see the names of the goodies and the baddies on the list from consumerlab.com...

I used to get my old dog glucosamine that was for humans, then cut into appropriate dosage per the vet. Worked great and no worries of lead for dear old Nanook:)

Will lead give my animals a shiny coat like the paint gave to my walls?

Ha ha ha, by the headline, I thought you were implying that pets with arthritis should be shot!

@saya: Yeah, thanks for the link to an article that's locked behind a subscription-only website.

So much for cadging Oxycotin from my vet.
Luckily, my cat's medical marijuana certificate is still up to date.

If a cat resting its head on a rat while sitting on a dog doesn't symbolize the potential for world peace, I can't imagine what else would. Yay, Sheiman!

@saya: From the AP link, which was part of Laura's write-up:
For people who do give pets joint supplements, experts suggest:
* Check with a vet beforehand to see if it is safe.
* Look for a seal of approval by an independent lab or organization.
* Keep a log of your pet's behavior, such as its ability to go up and down stairs, before and after supplement use so you can tell if it helps.
* Don't exceed recommended doses. Too much can cause loose stools and gas pains.
* Watch for shellfish allergies if using glucosamine derived from seafood.
* Avoid versions in salt form (NaCl, or sodium chloride on the label) if the animal has high blood pressure.
* Do not use glucosamine or chondroitin with blood thinners, such as heparin or aspirin, unless a vet advises it.

Would you have preferred that you were kept in the dark?

@Trai_Dep: No, but I didn't find the AP article particularly helpful other than to serve as a warning that the quality control on pet supplements isn't very good (apparently).

I was hoping to get to the crux of the article lead-in which warned "Four of the six joint supplements for animals tested by ConsumerLab.com lacked the amounts of glucosamine or chondroitin promised on their labels or had other flaws, such as lead. Alas, however, the AP won't name names.

I'm sure ConsumerLab.com pumps all these "urgent findings" out to the AP hoping that frantically worried pet owners will hurry on over and eagerly part with $30 to see if they're hurting their precious pets. That would be like The Consumerist running a story about children's toys being recalled because they contained dangerous levels of lead but then charging readers $30 to find out which toys were recalled.

I'm annoyed that someone would yell "fire" in a crowded theater and then ask for $30 to tell you where the fire was.

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя sings the doom song now!: I understand the frustration and $30 is a lot for just one article, but at the moment, that's the price for the research, study and other input this particular company is charging for this particular bit of information. They probably spent a fair amount of money doing the research and paying their employees to write it up, so somebody's got to get paid. Once it's free, nobody does, which means maybe this study doesn't get done again in the future.

Sure, I wanna know what the supplements are, and no, I'm not paying $30 for it. ($1 maybe.) But that's the cost. I'm not going to beef over that.

@Method of Steepest Descent: I think the "Old Yeller" method of vetinary care has fallen out of favor...

We do the same as polyeaster.

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя sings the doom song now!: Not at all. This isn't public info. It's a lab that tested stuff and is selling the results. If you want free results tell the government to do the testing.

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя sings the doom song now!: Sad. Either I can pay for my cat's glucosamine, or I pay for a report to tell me if the glucosamine is bogus.

The "Isn't your health worth it?" bit right before the "subscribe now!" button is pretty tasteless.

But who said American health-based capitalism wasn't tasteless?

@Method of Steepest Descent: Likewise, I thought this might be about administering a hot lead injection.

While you do have to pay the subscription to see the reports, they do at least list the brand names of the medicines tested. Check the list first to see if it's worth paying the money. You might not be using a brand which was tested: [www.consumerlab.com]

@veg-o-matic: we just use human glucosamine, but we have a dog and that's different from a cat.

I don't know if this makes me a bad person, but when I read the headline I thought it sounded like it was advocating taking your arthritic pet out back and shooting it.

@diasdiem: crap, missed the comment above. Should have searched "shot" instead of "shoot."

@Method of Steepest Descent: Haha when I read the title I had to hold back the laughter.

Is that a kitten or a rat in front of the cat?!

@HogwartsAlum: That sir is a rat. If you look closer you'll see its tail to the left

@Moosehawk:

Ok thanks. Except I'm a girl. :)

@Corporate_guy: @Kitteridge: I don't object to the fact that ConsumerLab.com is a paid service and if they did the research, they're entitled to ask to be paid for their efforts.

I also wasn't criticizing The Consumerist for linking to the AP article. My beef is with the way ConsumerLab.com released their "teaser" statement to AP in order to worry pet owners, knowing that said panicked pet owners would be an easy target from which to extract $30.

If there was a way I could have paid $1 to read it, I might have. But I'm not shelling over $30 for a year's membership just for one article of unknown quality.

@veg-o-matic:

The "Isn't your health worth it?" bit right before the "subscribe now!" button is pretty tasteless.

But who said American health-based capitalism wasn't tasteless?

Yeah, there's nothing like trying to get people all upset and anxious in order to grab their money. Definitely tasteless.