A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled foo

In concluding that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms of the pet, the pet food company makes several unjustified assumptions, an elucidation on which is quintessential.

Firstly, the pet food company mentions the recall of 4 million pounds of pet food, but furnishes no further details as to whether this food was collected from the people with affected pet population or not. In order to isolate the bad samples of food, the company has to ensure its looking in the right places. Recalling 4 million pounds or higher amounts of food and subsequent testing it, will amount to nothing, if the food collected contains a non representative sample of the food being complained about. In order to address this issue, food company must be specific in what, where and which food was being complained about, and whether the food recalled was atleast a larger sample of the specific noxious food in question.

Secondly, even if the food sample collected does contain the adulterated food, the company needs to conduct testing on a large enough sample of food to be sure of its safety. If the food being tested is only say 400 pounds out of a huge sample space of 4 million, the conclusion based on this small sample could be completely wrong. Therefore, the company must specify how much of the representative sample is the pet company scrutinzing. They could do random sampling to further justify safety of the food.

Thirdly, the company has already conducted the tests and found that the chemicals found in the food were the ones that were approved. this statement doesn't address issues like, were these chemicals found within safe proportions for consumptions for pets in question. It could be that food although contains the approved chemicals, but they could be not within the proportions prescribed by health organization (which is also not specified). The author of the statement also, makes no effort to point out the validity of the "approval" being cited. Sometimes, there are a different organisations in arounf the world who do accreditation of food, not all organisation who approve are good enough. So the credibility of the approval is also in question.

Moreover, even if the food contains the right chemicals in right proportions, it could be other factors inducing the symptoms of sickness. For example, it could be that the food becomes bad for ingestion after being mixed with external agents such as water or other food supplements fed to the pets. This angle also needs to be investigated by the food company. To do so, company should conduct a survey amongst the peopel whose pets show the mentioned symptoms. The survey should be very specific to the pet food and must ask the participants the additional details such as if the food is being heated or mixed with other components the food company isn't aware of that is causing problems for the pets.

In conclusion, the considerations cited above need to absolutely thought about in claiming that the food is safe for consumption for the pets. Otherwise the food company could lose its credibilty as pet food if it continues to operate under the impression that the food is safe, without the due dilligence on the matter. Until this is done, the company must remian skeptical of its food.