Skip to main content

Purina Beneful Walks Away from Accountability

benefullawsuitdismissed

Related News

Comment23

  1. Liz

    Sickening and heartbreaking. Thank you for the update, Susan.

  2. Paula

    “The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position that a reasonable jury could find Beneful unsafe based on the mere fact that 1,400 dogs ate Beneful and got sick or died thereafter”. Mere fact ??????? They ignored the vet expert opinions. Was the judge paid off? It gets more and more scary every day. Who has a vested interest – the vets who testified or the huge pet food manufacturer?

    It’s like saying X was seen pointing a gun at a victim and the victim was hit with a bullet proven to come from that gun and died – but the coroner’s opinion that the bullet caused the death cannot be considered.

  3. Peter

    The reality is that veterinarians diagnose illness based on “clinical symptoms” that are “observable,” that is: that they can see, witness, or identify pursuant to examination or tests. The terms “science” and “facts” carry specific legal meaning, which may differ from the ordinary common-sense perspective.

    The (presented) facts are that 1,400 dogs ate Beneful and got sick or died thereafter. But that in itself does not qualify as “evidence of causation.” And on that basis, (science and facts) it is true that “Indeed, there is no evidence such as an evaluation by a veterinarian that a dog actually did get sick or die because it ate Beneful,” because there was not enough specific “legal” “proof” that connected the food to the sick or dead dogs.

  4. Corinna

    Well, that is totally messed up. It makes me so angry how these big corporations get away with everything just because they have money. Not to mention they hurt whomever they wish and don’t even care that they are doing it. It is so wrong that they are getting away with “murder” to our precious pets. They are still selling that dangerous Beneful to unsuspecting pet owners. I try to tell as many pet owners as I can that it’s a dangerous dog food.

  5. Pat

    not much else to say that you and the commentators have voiced. Is there a way we can send our outrage to the judge? who probably in all likelihood got “charitable donations from Purina”…the corruption and greed is staggering.

  6. Pet Owner

    After following the TAPF for nearly 10 years, I used to think the website was about sorting out horrible PF from good PF.

    And so would on keep reading the stories about which manufacturers were doing what. Including the latest scandals and so forth.

    But here’s the thing.

    Purina happened to be under the microscope. It’s done bad things. They’ve been listed above. But the FDA has no power whatsoever over these companies. Because they don’t care. It’s not THEIR family or THEIR pet who’s affected.

    I’ve come to the conclusion there are only 2 kinds of “pet food.” One is manufactured outside my home. And the other is made from whole ingredients inside my home. That’s really the point about the “Truth About Pet Food.” It has less to do with specific risky ingredients, than the entire operating mandate of an Industry! Purina is a symptom of what’s going on, and anything that manufacturers can get away with. People might think the food they use is the best possible brand just because they don’t “hear” anything bad. But what kind of assurance is it?

    Whether or not this lawsuit went to trial, or Purina agreed to a settlement, or escaped a judgement … doesn’t make any difference. Except for the emotional toll taken on the victims. If Purina had to pay money either for a penalty or for compensation it would’ve been pennies in their bucket.

    The only thing these companies fear is SUSTAINED bad publicity. Yes it would’ve been a good headline to read: “Purina found guilty of Beneful Killing 1400 Dogs.” But that too would’ve passed. Just as the 2007 Recall passed from the minds of consumers. They don’t really care, sadly. I watch bags and bags of the most horrific kinds of PF going out the doors of discount and warehouse stores. And if you were to speak to any of those buyers they would look at you as if you’d lost your mind for ever questioning “food that’s made for pets!”

    What’s wrong with this picture.

  7. Teresa Reid

    That is just shocking, but I expected it from Purina. They must pay off every judge and all other appointed lawmakers who turn their heads while our pets are suffering and dying. Bet NONE of their pets eat Beneful. Very very scarey what big businesses are allowed to do. So, all of us must spread the news about this harmful food as much as possible and do all we can to alert unsuspecting people that this food may kill their beloved pet. Susan, do you think this outcome will effect the trial that is set to start in January against a pet food company?

  8. Eve

    I HAVE AN IDEA: LETS KICK THE TOXIC COMMERCIAL PET FOOD OUT OF OUR SUPERMARKETS! WE NEED AN ONLINE PETITION (care2petitions or forcechange) and stipulate on the petition that the Supermarkets are responsible for SELLING these PET FOODS which KILL our Pets. This way CONSUMERS PET OWNERS have the POWER to REFUSE these product period. Then they will be forced to sell online or some vet clinics buy by then hopefully vets wont stock them. It’s the pet owners now , it’s up to them to just don’t buy it EVER. I live in Australia and it is shocking to see at an ALDI Store ALL the pet foods are labelled stating : Made in accordance with USA standards OMG!!!! Even some Cat foods in Coles and Woollies do NOT list ANY INGREDIENTS huh? I thought THAT was illegal????

  9. Jeni John

    What did the autopsy / necropsy results show – did they highlight an unreasonable amount of any ingredient in the animals’tissue?

  10. Sue

    $ talks and Purina has a ton of it, but honestly that judge should have his head examined. Imagine what he would have done if they had brought the dead bodies into the court room as evidence?!
    It’s like big Pharma and the cures for cancer. It really makes me sick to think that money is more important than life itself and apparently always will be!
    The loop holes that these big companies manage to skate through is disgusting and really I wonder truly how they can sleep at night?!?!!

  11. Susanne

    And with the new, anti-regulation regime coming into power – this will only get worse 🙁

    1. Pat P.

      I am afraid that you are right!

  12. Reader

    I understand the point of the article, and my condolences to the conscientious Owner just trying to do the right thing for other consumers. Obviously another example of a failure in the Justice System.

    But I also wonder about the attorneys representing the case! The arguments were confusing, and the use of them didn’t seem relevant to the spirit of the lawsuit. Therefore the denial of the arguments didn’t speak to the overall failure of Purina! Meaning that in the end, a defective product caused the death of many pets. And that Purina should’ve had steps in place to prevent such a tragedy.

    1. Why use Veterinarians to say consumers expect a safe product, when nobody intentionally buys a defective one? Any conversation between a Vet and Client to that fact doesn’t matter. Unless a Vet knowingly recommended a defective product, then the Vet would be liable.

    2. Since Purina wouldn’t incriminate itself (by cooperatin) there was no evidence of Purina intentionally doing wrong, or failing to prove they corrected prior violations. It could be argued that the defective PF was accidental and incidental, unknown that it was being sold to consumers. So the attorneys should’ve demonstrated Purina’s negligence because of a failure in quality control, which permitted a defective product to leave the Plant!

    3. Peter is right, evidence must be legally factual, objective and not casual opinion. Expert Witnesses must be credentialed in their field of expertise for their comments to be pertinent in a case. Why didn’t the attorneys demonstrate (by testing the PF) that it contained illegal toxins (cyanuric acid, melamine and ethoxquin)? And that the accumulation of these toxins could lead to the sickness and death of a pet?

    4. Why would attorneys present Vets’ opinions having to do with consumer behavior, instead of using their forensic skills to show how a defective product could kill a pet?

    5. Did the attorneys collect the analyses of most of the Vets involved in the deaths of the other 1,400 pets? Probably not, since it was a Class Action Lawsuit. But wouldn’t it be productive to present a consensus of independent analyses across the board?

    6. Shouldn’t the attorneys have argued that Purina was in violation of selling a product with undeclared ingredients, and that doing so, is what put their Client at risk, resulting in sick pets?

    I don’t know, maybe we’ve all been watching too many Crime Drama Shows on TV …

    1. JaneeS

      I agree with you. I think the attorneys did a poor job. I also think you should have been on the legal team 🙂 I wonder how much weight was given to the consumers saying that they expect a safe product, not just having the court rely on veterinarian testimony. Doesn’t the direct testimony of consumers support the opinions of the vets? The attorneys needed to meet the burden of proof by specifically and factually addressing Purina’s negligence by making the proper legal arguments, collecting scientific data, questioning the proper qualified experts, and proving that Purina was purposely negligent. The ruling is sad and horrible. It really demonstrates that Purina has no interest in the health of our pets and even consents to harming them just so that profits keep flowing in.

  13. Tascha

    I am in tears over this. The only thing we can do, as consumers, to stop the big businesses from profiting from killing our pets, is to stop buying their products! A very sad time, especially in progressive California. Shame on them!

  14. JaneeS

    Susan or anyone, do you know anything about the new crap food Beneful Natural (not sure of the exact name)? What a load of bull! I’m not surprised that Purina marketers came up with this idea. Probably more people will feed their pets this junk thinking how great it is since Purina says it is natural. We all know the term NATURAL means nothing.

    Then there is the commercial with the supposed Purina employee saying how she’s part of the team making the food (feed) and is proud to feed her dog Purina products, since she knows the quality ingredients they use. I want to scream whenever I see that ad.

  15. Jane Anderson

    They can say “1400” pets died from Beneful. No doubt the total is many more. Just like the 2007 pet poisonings, the news continued to say “at least 6 pets died”. Wonder what would happen if polite innocent questions about the ingredients in Beneful were to be continually posted on Purina’s page? They can’t block all of us!

    1. Anita Fitzpatrick

      It’s really hard to tell how many pets were actually affected. My Aussie was diagnosed with colon cancer…we did a colon resection in hopes to save her. The following spring she started bleeding again, she died before she was 3 years old in 2008. We fed her Beneful. It’s heart breaking! At this time the best we can do is keep spreading the word to everyone, on every platform…to READ the labels.

  16. Caroline Snyder

    WE will keep fighting NESTLE/PURINA.

    WE will boycott EVERY product made and sold by NESTLE, the corporate head..

    WE will continue to spread awareness of GARBAGE like PURINA that passes for pet food.

    WE will continue to EDUCATE everyone regarding a species appropriate diet.. and yes, that means GETTING EDUCATED ON INGREDIENTS and stopping ANYone in the pet food aisle that makes moves to buy this so-called “food”.

    PLEASE JOIN US – Fighting Purina’s Disinformation Since February 2013!

    Is BENEFUL by Purina KILLING or SICKENING Dogs? Post YOUR Story!

    FACEBOOOK LINK HIGHLIGHTED

  17. Jane Anderson

    I didn’t see any highlighted link? Maybe people can start posting polite want to know ingredients questions on Purina’s page, then including the link.

  18. Pet Owner

    “Caroline Snyder’s” name is a hyperlink to FACEBOOK.

    I don’t have an account so can’t check it out for you, sorry.

  19. Terri Janson

    I am a member of Caroline Snyders group and it’s a GREAT group to belong to. I have learned a LOT from this group!!! They helped me get a newly adopted senior poodle healthy! 🙂

  20. Brian

    People fed their ostensibly beloved pets a Purina product and were surprised that the product was of low quality and contained suspect, unlisted ingredients. Until citizens successfully insist that there is unbiased testing and accountability in this industry, they’ll be on their own to determine what foods are worthy to feed their pets. Nestle/Purina have a long, decades-old record of endangering innocent people, animals, and whole ecosystems with their blatant disregard of moral standards. You love your pet . . . don’t ever entrust its health to such a criminal organization.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *