Talk:Menu Foods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Why the name?
Why does the name include "Income Fund?" Is it really a mutual fund of some sort? Nospamtodd 13:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's an investment partnership, which owns the manufacturer, called Menu Foods Limited. There's no reason we should use the full name of the holding company on the article (and suffixes such as Limited are dispreferred anyway per WP:NCC). It's similar to the way Subway restaurants were franchised by "Doctor's Associates". McDonald's and so on are actually structured similarly, but they don't use goofy names for their holding companies. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean WP:NC-CORP; WP:NCC deals with comic books.--Sommerfeld 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Source removal
I haven't done much adding of info in articles, but added the part of the rat poison. I cited a source, and it was removed. Did I cite the source incorrectly or was the source removed improperly? Just wanting to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. Dpeters11 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was just switched to a different (better?) source, from ABCNews.com. I wouldn't worry about it.-- Dhartung | Talk 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Characterization of wheat gluten as "filler"?
Press reports I've read have alternately describe the role of wheat gluten in the affected food as either a gravy thickener or as a protein supplement; see also Wheat_gluten_(food), where one form intended for human consumption is described as a "high protein snack". Is calling it a "filler" really NPOV? --Sommerfeld 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The F.D.A. is focusing on wheat gluten, a protein used as filler in the food’s manufacture, as the likely source of contamination. —ptk✰fgs 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The press descriptions are inconsistent, some say "filler" while others say "thickener" or "protein supplement"; I rewrote the section with a bunch of cites and links including to a new FDA FAQ which hadn't been linked before. Also found a new ASPCA poison control center press release indicating that they're concerned about other contaminents being involved.--Sommerfeld 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think as a term it's intended pejoratively. The role of grain byproducts such as wheat gluten has been changing. Fifty years ago, the industry would have bluntly called it filler, it if were used at all (and people would have considered it cheap pet food that didn't have "real" meat). Nowadays it's much more common and there's actually pushback on health reasons, in that dogs and cats (according to advocates) aren't omnivores like humans and can't digest vegetable matter as efficiently. The industry, though, would defend it as a source of protein and fiber (a kind of "filler" that's good for you or your pet). Anyway, the language in the article now handles it better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Anyhow, the link was to the fillers article which at the moment is pretty negative. --Sommerfeld 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. All the sources are critics. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've revised that article at filler (animal food). Anyone, feel free to edit or comment there. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. All the sources are critics. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Anyhow, the link was to the fillers article which at the moment is pretty negative. --Sommerfeld 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think as a term it's intended pejoratively. The role of grain byproducts such as wheat gluten has been changing. Fifty years ago, the industry would have bluntly called it filler, it if were used at all (and people would have considered it cheap pet food that didn't have "real" meat). Nowadays it's much more common and there's actually pushback on health reasons, in that dogs and cats (according to advocates) aren't omnivores like humans and can't digest vegetable matter as efficiently. The industry, though, would defend it as a source of protein and fiber (a kind of "filler" that's good for you or your pet). Anyway, the language in the article now handles it better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The press descriptions are inconsistent, some say "filler" while others say "thickener" or "protein supplement"; I rewrote the section with a bunch of cites and links including to a new FDA FAQ which hadn't been linked before. Also found a new ASPCA poison control center press release indicating that they're concerned about other contaminents being involved.--Sommerfeld 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First line source?
The first line of the article seems to have been lifted straight from Menu Foods' own promotional material, like the last line from [1]. Is this fair use/wanted? Even if so, the use of "the leading" could be a bit POV. Cstanners 07:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was their PR. I've rewritten it from a USA Today article that gave the salient points of being the largest mfr. and selling under 95 brands. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recalled Products Category
I would like to suggest the creation of a recalled products category for Wikipedia - is there any support for such a category? Perhaps it could have subcategories such as pet food, baby seats, food, cars, etc... Blacknail 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Having spent some time at WP:CFD, I would recommend against it. Recalls are generally temporary, and apply to portions of a product's run, not the entire history of it (e.g. GMC Yukons built between January and June of 2006). Thus this is not inherent to the product itself, and at a point becomes obsolete. Given the nature of the regulatory environment many many recalls are precautionary. --Dhartung | Talk 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
