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 food an

On the surface, the company's argument that no additional resources should be used to investigate the complaints of illness in pets seems reasonable. However, further examination of assumptions is required to deem this argument valid.

First, the company has assumed that only chemicals in the food can be the cause of illness symptoms. It is possible that unhygienic preparation methods had been responsible for adulteration of the food. Thus, not just the ingredients, but also the production and storage methods should be examined to determine whether the food is fit for consumption.

In addition to generally unhygienic practices, it is possible that the batch of food that was observed to be associated with symptoms had been adulterated due to some other reasons (bad storage, inclement weather etc), while the recalled food was not affected by these factors. Thus, it is possible that the recalled food was safe, even though the food actually consumed was not. It would be wrong to extrapolate on the basis of the recalled samples that the product which actually reached the homes of consumers is safe too.

Further, the claim that approved chemicals have been used in the food has been made on the basis of tests conducted by the company itself. The crucial question then, becomes whether the testing has been foolproof and unbiased? Did the company have the wherewithal to rigorously test the samples using objective, scientific techniques? These questions need to be answered satisfactorily before accepting the claim of the company.

The given argument discusses the contention of a pet food company that resources should not be devoted to the investigation of the pet food, as it has been found that only approved chemicals have been used in the food. However, a careful examination of the underlying assumptions suggests that the argument might be flawed. The company should take an initiative to get the samples tested by an independent and disinterested agency to determine whether the food is safe. Further, an internal audit also seems necessary to review the production, packaging and storage methods, which might have contributed to the adulteration of its products.