Make Your Mark

In our last few installments, you read all sorts of details about how difficult it is to protect your dog from accidentally (or mischievously) ingesting the highly toxic compound xylitol. You have to read all the fine print on all the labels. You have to memorize a list of its known aliases. Manufacturers actually have some vested interest in keeping this information concealed from the consumer, since the quantity of xylitol is considered a part of their “secret formula”.

Don’t believe me? True story: veterinarians frantically calling to find out the toxic payload in a particular package or piece of chewing gum have been required to submit a questionnaire and a signed nondisclosure agreement demanding they omit any xylitol-related numerical data from the patient’s medical file. Then, and only then, could the critical information be disclosed, thus determining the fate of the pet. True story. (I won’t name any names.) The majority of these companies have been coaxed, although not required by law, to share essential data with pet poison control centers (only)—as long as a legally binding confidentiality agreement has already been filed and approved.

Okay, so we may not ever know the exact threat level of each product without jumping through a lot of hoops. Could we at least have goods containing this ingredient—in any quantity—flagged with a warning on the package? That’s a no-brainer, right?

Well, apparently it requires an act of Congress. Sad story: Wolfie Holycross lost his life in 2020 from xylitol poisoning, and his family was so heartbroken that they resolved to do something about it. One day, the dad just showed up on their Congressman’s front porch asking to talk. That guy was Arizona Representative David Schweikert, and he was so moved by Wolfie’s story that he promptly introduced a bill to Congress. Very simple and brief bill, not big or beautiful, it required products to be marked, “Contains xylitol, which is poisonous to dogs.” That bill was probably introduced too late in the term to be successful, but it did have 12 cosponsors, and indicator that its substance was not objectionable. Mr. Schweikert introduced it again at the start of the next term (2023). It fizzled out once again, so he reintroduced it even earlier in the next term (2025). With only a single cosponsor this time around, it carries an awkward legacy of failed attempts. Why, though? Isn’t this a no-brainer?

There’s just a lot of other stuff on their plate right now. This legislation is warranted, life-saving, cheap, and easy to enact, but it’s also—sadly—a meek little bill that is easy to ignore. It needs attention, which is difficult to obtain in this chaotic environment, otherwise it will never get its moment to shine. It needs your lawmaker to realize how important it is to you. Don’t write to your Senator, because this bill is sitting in the House right now, out of the reach of the Senate. Just type “house.gov” into your search bar, then enter your zip code. Send them a note. Maybe you’ll save the life of their family dog. Maybe you’ll get the legislation passed. Remember to mention it by its exact name, HR 237.

Off you go. Change the world.

Dr M.S. Regan