OUR BEST FRIENDS

whs-logo

The Sergei Foundation

shelterpet_logo

The Animal Rescue Site

B-more Dog

aldflogo

Pinups for Pitbulls

philadoptables

TFPF_Logo

Mid Atlantic Pug Rescue

Our Pack, Inc.

Maine Coonhound Rescue

Saving Shelter Pets, Inc.

mabb

LD Logo Color

Tag: confusion

Ruh-roh: Scooby-Doo dog treats end up on the human cookie aisle in Australia

scoobsnack

You’d think that — even on the cookie aisle — a mother would think twice before tossing a bag of Scooby Snacks into her grocery cart for the kids.

You’d think that the picture of the famous cartoon dog on the package, and the words “pet food only,” would have given her a clue.

You’d think that, as she loaded the bone-shaped treats into her children’s lunch boxes, she’d realize something was amiss.

But it wasn’t until the kids got home from school and told her they didn’t like the new “choc friendly carob” treats — “yuck, they are disgusting,” they said — that she gave the package a closer look.

That’s when she finally saw they were not only labeled as dog treats but that they promoted “skin and coat health.”

“On closer inspection they are DOG treats,” Tania Toomey, of Sydney, Australia, admitted on Facebook. “It does say that it is pet food only – human friendly but not recommended!”

But she added, “BE CAREFUL the store is very disorganised … Terrible and disgraceful, not to mention dangerous!” she wrote on the store’s Facebook page.

Before we pounce too hard on grocery store management — or the stoner stock boy we imagine was behind the error — consider this.

There are Scooby Snacks for dogs AND Scooby treats for humans, not too mention some other slang applications of the term to describe — Zoinks! — certain illicit drugs.

keeblerscoobygrahamKeebler, a Kellogg’s company, makes bone-shaped Scooby Doo Graham Cracker Sticks for humans, and they come in a box with Scooby pictured on the front.

Betty Crocker, a General Mills company, offers Scooby-Doo Fruit Flavored Snacks — for humans. They come in a box with a big picture of Scooby on the front.

Del Monte makes a version of its dog treat Snausages that goes under the name Scooby Snacks.

Confused? As a rule, if something is called Scooby Snacks (without the “doo”) it is probably a dog snack. If the full name of the dog is used — both the the “Scooby” and the “Doo” — it is likely a human snack, even if it is shaped like a bone and has a large picture of a dog on the box.

Still confused? Well, we all are, but do be careful when asking for Scooby Snacks, because the phrase can also apply to Valium, Vicodin, Quaaludes, and hash or marijuana brownies, according to Urban Dictionary.

Scooby Snacks, in the cartoon show, were consumed by dog and human alike. Some of the show’s cult members/fans are convinced they were actually (well, as “actually” as things can get in a cartoon) weed or hash brownies.

They seemed to be a common solution to many of the problems Scooby and the gang came across. They made everything work out — or at least kept Shaggy and Scooby on an even keel.

We should point out here that dog treats of any type aren’t generally harmful to children or other humans, and that until the makers of rat poisons start appropriating Scooby’s name and image, we are probably safe.

Since the story of the Sydney mom hit social media, many others have admitted to accidentally consuming the dog treats — in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere.

A father-of-two from the northern beaches in Sydney bought the dog treats for his young boys. He told news.com.au that the dog treats were incorrectly placed in the snack aisle of his local Woolworth’s and he grabbed them quickly without looking at the packet.

groceryaisleAnother posted a photo of Scooby Snacks for dogs clearly pictured next to packets of human snacks in a grocery store.

Woolworths initially stated that the pet food product was only stocked in the pet food aisle.

Then, store officials admitted that a mix-up had occurred and apologized for it.

Comments from social media users indicate that Scooby-labeled snacks have created confusion among many customers and at more than a few stores.

And in their comments, as always, they’re feeling free to pass judgment.

Some social media users have defended the mother as a victim of grocery store error.

Some have pointed out the product is clearly marked as a dog treat and say the mother should have been a little more alert.

Others have inquired as to whether her children have taken to digging in the back yard or scratching behind their ears.

Pay toll or die

Since I was in elementary school, I’ve had trouble distinguishing New Hampshire from Vermont. I know one of them is fat at the bottom and skinny at the top and the other is skinny at the bottom and fat at the top. I know one is directly east of the other. I know one is the “Live Free or Die” state (though it has always struck me as a rather bold assertion, coming from a license plate).

But — even though I’ve been to both — I’ve never been quite postive which was which. They are easily confused, at least in my head.

Heading north on I-95, I hit New Hampshire — or was it Vermont? No, it was New Hampshire — and was surprised to find myself suddenly coming to a toll booth.

Had I more carefully checked my maps, I would have known, by the green coloring, that portions of I-95 were toll; but I didn’t, so it was a rude awakening — kind of like going to the library and, halfway through a book, being told you’re going to have to pay to read the ending.

On top of that, it struck me as strange. Wait a minute, I thought. Isn’t this the “Live Free or Die” state? Sure, I know that the “free” the slogan refers to is the type we all take for granted, as opposed to the type that I’m always on the lookout for. Still, the two have a lot in common, viewed in an historical perspective — for taxation, and avoiding unfair forms of it, was a big part of America becoming America. So either way, it seemed ironic.

Unless, of course, I had it backwards and Vermont is the live free or die state.

In any event, I forked over my $2 — it seeming a far better choice than dying — and drove on.

A bit later, I stopped in the lovely little town of Portsmouth, N.H., for a quick drive-through and a pack of cigarettes. At a Sunoco station, I noticed some homemade dog treats on the counter and asked if they were made locally.

“In Vermont,” the proprietor answered. “The upside down New Hampshire.”

That got me confused again, temporarily. “And which state am I in?” I asked.

“This is New Hampshire,” he said.

“And which one is the live free or die state?” I asked.

“We are,” he said.

“Is that still the slogan?” I asked.

“Well,” he said, “it depends how many more people from Mass. move up here. If that keeps happening we’ll just be dying.”

New Hampshire also uses I-95 to promote the sale of liquor in its state stores, and state lottery tickets.

In addition to exit signs for historical attractions, food, gas and lodging, New Hampshire prominently posts official signs on the Interstate for exits at which there are state liquor stores and state lottery outlets. It has yet to post signs for other vices — drug dealers, houses of prostitution, strip clubs and the like — but then again, it doesn’t run those operations.

We passed through but a sliver of New Hampshire, and will be visiting its northern reaches in another week or so, as Ace and I make our way back from the top of Maine. From previous visits, I know $2 was a small price to pay to see the White Mountains, in their full fall beauty, no less.

But I still have trouble with Vermont’s … I mean New Hamsphire’s … slogan. It strikes me as a little too drastic — a little too suicide bomber, a little too Toby Keith.

I think the slogan could use some editing. Here’s what I propose: “Live Free.”