I don't agree with some of it, but that's just me. I'm not thrilled with the fact that they are now spraying really nasty herbicides on grains and such to finish drying them on the plants, either, but it's allowed.
I just feel as though, just because someone says that it's okay to do something, even well-know people, doesn't mean that it is. *Getting off of my soapbox.*
The study that was done on dogs actually began as a skin issue test. It was done on Staffordshire Bull Terriers, specifically, and there were something like 20+ sources. I know that one was a vet group in England. I'll have to re-search it for you.
The way that I see it, is that too many people are reacting to arsenic in their diets. I had just not thought, for some dumb reason, about pets having the same issues.
For me, it's not an issue of someone setting limits or saying if it does, or does not, affect dogs and cats. It's just that, it's logical that it would affect them, as well.
What I really hate, is when companies, or groups, know that something is harmful, but don't admit it until they have to, which is sometimes years to decades later, and by then, the damage has been done, such as the poor women in the lawsuits after having used baby powder all this time. Who would have thought of asbestos when thinking of baby powder? :-(
I would rather stop using something suspect, then they can tell me later what their years and years of research decided.
At least we get the chance to each make the decision for ourselves, our kids/grandkids, and our pets. If we don't think it's an issue, we can just go on. If we do, we can stop using whatever it is, or cut way back on it.
Thanks, I'll look for my link to the article that I read, and some misc. links.
Love All Life, Thank You For Posting! :)