Skip to main content

Smucker’s Believes Recall And Refund Is Sufficient Penalty

Related News

Comment8

  1. Peg

    Hell NO!!!
    And they have some nerve calling themselves “Big Heart”
    Should be “Big Batches of Poison”

  2. Cannoliamo

    A couple corrections …..

    1) Smuckers did absolutely NOTHING volunatrily and of their own accord to identify the pentobarbital contamination, notify consumers of the risk, recall the contaminated food, offer a refund to the consumers and/or offer to reimburse any expenses for resultant veterinary care. If not notified by the FDA, Smuckers would have ignored the contamination and continued to produce, market, distribute and sell the contaminated food without any self-imposed corrective action.

    2) The source of the contamination (known by Smuckers prior to and during the recall episode) was euthanized horse meat that was being included in the food product without AAFCO label identification and in direct defiance of Alabama regulatory compliance (i.e. they were intentionally contaminating the food with euthanized horse meat, intentionally violating the regulatory requirements pertaining to contamination with poisonous substances, and intentionally not disclosing this illegal practice of adding known contamination / poison to their dog food product to consumers, regulatory agencies and the general public).

    3) Smuckers has not gone out of its way to satisfy public concern and consumer demand for correcting this contamination. All of their responses involved using defense attorneys to minimize their financial liabilities. No concern above and beyond the minimal required actions have ever been initiated by Smuckers.

    What exactly is the rational basis for requesting leniency by the court?

  3. J King

    Absolutely not! As Peg said, this attitude is rich coming from a line calling itself “Big Heart.”

    Smucker’s – and other Big Pet Foods – serve up garbage to pets 24/7, then feel *wronged* when sued for ALSO dishing out significant dollups of barbiturates. Petsumers are the ones being wronged here, every step of the way.

    Pets are our family – they are NOT furry waste receptacles.

  4. Cheri Fellinger

    With all the current information available about the possibility of contamination of animal feed at this point I feel anyone who chooses to feed commercial animal feed to their animals is neglectful. But if you are reading this, I am preaching to a choir. I will never feed it again but then I have been feeding home made for 23 years. Here’s the problem, those of us “in the know” are a small per-portion of world wide animal owners. Just like with information on over vaccination & toxic flea products the big question is: HOW DO WE GET THIS INFORMATION TO THOSE WHO DO NOT RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM IT’S SCIENTIFIC AND FACTUAL SOURCES LIKE WE DO???????? There is just so much mis-information served as rancid steaming bowls of poo to the gullible & blind pet owning public. How do we get them this information in a way they will understand and believe? They are pretty brainwashed right now.

    1. Jeanne

      Agree except for one thing…..there are thousands of people that cannot afford to feed homemade diets, raw or otherwise, or the high dollar quality commercial foods available. Please, don’t start with the mantra, “if you can’t afford to xyz then you shouldn’t have an animal”. That’s nonsense for more than one reason. First, you have no idea what financial situation a person was in when acquiring an animal(s), nor what has transpired since, second, if everyone that couldn’t afford what some people believe are essentials did not have any animals, who would be taking care of these thousands of pets? The shelters are already full, rescues are full, fosters are full, thousands are euthanized daily across the country. And no, raw diets are not cheaper to feed when including the proper organ meats and making it a balanced diet. I wish it were and for some people that have access to certain meats it can be, but that’s the exception not the rule. Where I used to live I had access to a lot of meats and organs at a really cheap price. Not so now, in fact, can’t even find organ meats as a rule, let alone affordably. Commercial food is lacking to be sure, without question. But for many that’s the option they have. Manufacturers should be held to using the proper meat and ingredient sources and punished to the max when they don’t. It won’t stop until the cost hurts them more than their profits.

      1. Pet Owner

        I’ve seen this argument before, and believe in balancing the discussion for newer readers. Except for physically challenged owners, there is only one excuse for taking shortcuts, and that’s choosing convenience over common sense.

        1) Handling car ownership, means gas, maintenance & fee considerations, so rational choices are based on reality (not emotion).
        2) Who is responsible for “backyard breeder” mistakes & greed contributing to shelter issues, instead of communities demanding enforcement and fines,otherwise bad behavior excels!
        3) Choosing a shelter dog comes from the heart, not as a civic duty.
        4) Raw diets (scrap meat) is cost effective from old fashioned and local ranch butchers. Some cities (mine) have consortiums (group purchasing) using volunteers who manage distribution.
        5) Rotational feeding in an alternative.
        6) One raw/ healthy meal a week/month is better than a non-stop diet of Ol’Roy PF.
        7) Wonderful people caring for foster children are not expected to “dumb down” meal plans because of quantity.
        8) Cost of living (here) is very high, yet ground beef is $3.50 a pound; a better than average kibble is $2.35lb a pound.
        9) Using a can of Dinty Moore’s Beef Stew can be a better choice than some canned PF. A bag of Pet Kelp (vitamins/minerals) is very affordable.
        10) Being on a fixed income, not requiring a steady diet of meat, means my portion of the budget is donated to my furry companions.
        10) Additional protein rich foods can be included, like egg, canned fish or chicken, and (FF) cottage cheese.
        11) People sinking under the reasonable affordability of pets, can be approaching the threshold of animal hoarding.
        12) Per individual lifestyles, consider pet size when adopting.
        13) Every creature is due quality of life, which shouldn’t be compromised by using “Dollar Store” and “Corner Gas Station” grade PF!
        13) There’s more to owning a pet than “feeding” including safety, preventative & critical medical care, comfort, grooming, exercise and personal attention!

        Nothing is easy, but that which we love, makes it possible!

    2. Ron

      Very well put! And so true, apparently nutrition for your dogs have always been important and you did a lot of research on your own because you wanted your dog to be as healthy as possible. And that’s what I did also, I took personal responsibility for my German Shepherd’s health. Common sense dictated to me commercial dog foods are not what Mother Nature had in mind for our dogs diet. No more than feeding our children a cereal that was suppose to have 100% of their daily requirements of vitamins and minerals for the rest of their lives.
      Nowadays it’s easy to research than what it use to be, but there are so many self appointed experts you have to search with diligence.

  5. cindy

    Glad they had to recall 90 million cans of dogfood. I’m guessing that the most effective indictment is that responsible pet owners, once knowing they are grinding up euthanized horses to make dog food, will boycott ANY product from this company. That is the only way to get even for this irresponsibility, in the pocketbook. I appreciate the information Susan Thixton brings to us.

Leave a Reply