Blue Buffalo Responds to Purina Lawsuit

The suit itself, is an entertaining read. You might initially balk, at 81 pages, but it is a quick read. I would suggest that it is intended for public consumption and media re-reporting. It is written in a very conversational and easily digestible style… quite unlike typical complaints, oddly free of legal-ese and even, “big” words and technical terminology. Lawyers don’t write this way to courts. When have you read a complaint clogged with “pictures”? Comon… this complaint is meant to be “read” by the consumer, it is crafted as an advertisement. So many people use Purina products… many of us were raised on them… the public just doesn’t want to accept that their products are so awful. I doubt that the “Purina is junk, too” aspect of this conflict will resonate… what will, is the posture that Blue’s advertising is false. They’ll probably discontinue or modify it, soon, in response?

Both of these companies have far too many skeletons in their cupboards which litigating this may inadvertently reveal.

Just feed Raw. Make it yourself from local farmers that raise grass fed, drug free animals or find a company that sources from the same. Kibble in any form is devoid of any nutrition due to high heat process, as is most human food found at your local grocery store. They are ALL about profit and don’t care about your animals health (or yours!). I have worked in the pet care field since 1969. I see daily the animals suffering from Cancer and other diseases when under 10 years old. Diseases unheard of 30 years ago. I see animals on drugs for anxiety, depression. WTF?
As I grew up, our pets ate from the left overs on the farm. Raw milk, meat scraps and veggies from the garden. Not unusual at all to have them live healthy lives for 20 years. No Vaccinations! Purina or Blue. Probably best to avoid both, as well as the rest of the Corp. owned companies. Follow the money!

A quick search of “who owns Blue Buffalo” shows this from TheDeal.com regarding a potential 2014 IPO: http://www.thedeal.com/content/consumer-retail/blue-buffalo-could-see-ipo-sale-in-2014.php

In Nov. 2012, Blue Buffalo named Kurt Schmidt, the former deputy executive vice president of Nestle Nutrition, as chief executive. Shortly before that, it brought on Mike Nathenson as CFO who was formerly CFO of Dean Foods Co.’s dairy division.

Invus LLC in Europe is their equity provider.

I wouldn’t purchase their products given their exec’s past positions.

>Roseanne Carrigan Back in the 60s & 70s Purina was a top dog food. I fed it. Then in the 80s things started changing. I almost lost a litter of puppies feeding them Purina puppy chow. Others were having the same problems at the time. I fed Iams during the 80s and 90s and my dogs all exceeded their normal lifespan (cats too) I didn’t have a dog during much of the 2000s when I got my new puppy 2 years ago I started checking the label on foods and I was SHOCKED. Purina’s (and Iams,etc) first 2 or 3 ingredients out of 5 were corn or grain! Since when are dogs herbivores or poultry?? Cat food is the same way. Too much cheap corn in this country. It’s not just Purina its Iams and all the big retail brands. Roseanne, people wouldn’t be paying outrageous prices for better food if their animals are healthy on Purina/Iams/etc!!! They only change because their animals are getting sick. Vets are expensive and good food is cheaper then vet bills and the misery of sick animals. So if you can feed a pure Purina diet and your animal remains healthy, Great! But some day you and your family will have dogs with health issues or shortened lives and will start looking at what you are feeding them. I am a vet tech with a degree in animal science and the the food issues in this country with animals AND people makes me sick thinking about it. Your diet is as unhealthy as your dogs and you are being lied to left and right. For me, Purina dog chow makes an excellent supplemental chicken feed for hens raising chicks (when I buy it on sale).

What we eat now isn’t what grandma gave us back then, all food source has “evolved”. Will we continue to be entertained into a false sense of product security? The legal arguments won’t solve the real problems that we all face with deception. Let’s eat from the can of worms at least they are what they are.
Glib…yes, thank goodness for the likes of Susan.
Eat healthy my friends.

A pet food manufacturer suing pet another pet food manufacturer may POSSIBLY help bring public attention to the issue of pet food quality, or perhaps a debate over ingredient definitions. But since Purina’s lawsuit and Blue Buffalo’s reply both read more like ad copy than legalese, I doubt this legal action will have much positive impact on the quality of food these companies sell – or their transparency with consumers either.
If you use the products of either of these companies, please write to them and encourage them to take the pledge: http://associationfortruthinpetfood.com/the-pledge/ … and if your pet-food-mftr won’t commit to that standard of quality, please write to them again… in this particular lawsuit/ad-campaign, both mftr’s are making product quality statements that they are NOT willing to back up with a pledge to their consumers!

Speaking from over 45 years of experience with cats, I can tell you definitively that the Purina Cat Chow of today is not the same as it was back then. I can also tell you definitely that renal disease in cats, flea/food allergies, hyperthyroidism, dental disease etc, were literally unheard of back then. At that time my cats were easily living into their twenties in good health, and with all their teeth, on Purina Cat Chow. BUT, they also hardly ever saw the vet except for a rabies vaccine. Incidentally, back then we never saw ANY vaccine induced sarcomas, seldom ever heard of ANY chronic illness in cats.

Whatever is destroying the quality of life for our pets today, and killing them early, it is probably more complex than just poor quality food. Nonetheless, we have a moral duty to supply them with the highest quality, most vetted and tested food we can afford. I thought I was doing that by feeding Blue Wilderness Indoor kibble. Now I wonder, especially after finding out who the new leadership is.

Last year I started noticing that my 4 cats were rejecting some bags of kibble. I’d return that bag to the store and try another bag, and they would eat it. When one cat does that we can tentatively conclude he’s in finicky mode. But when 4 cats do it, it’s a data point, and an alarm.

I have no evidence, no first hand knowledge of Blue lying to anyone, but based on my cats’ behavior, I do know that their quality control seems to have slipped from where it used to be. I’m looking for a new kibble.

I think PacSun is right on in regard to the legal dispute!

I’m willing to bet you that Nestle-Purina has hundreds of pound of this BB product in question. I personally do not think a multinational corporation that is traded on Wall St would be so aggressive in a lawsuit if they did not have very solid science to back them up. I don’t hear BB screaming that the claims are slanderous.

Something that BB does not promote in their commercial efforts is that they do not make any pet food. They are building a plant, but to my knowledge it has yet to produce one piece of kibble, one can of food, or one treat. Blue Buffalo does not make pet food, they market it. If you call the 800 number on their bag, they will tell you this. They have over 10 different co-packers make their food for them. BB is not a pet food manufacturer.

I will not be surprised if they do indeed find the accused corn, by-product, and rice hulls in the BB foods. It will also not surprise me when the owner of BB will say that it was a third party that make the food for them that was the guilty party and that they will not use this manufacturer any more.

If BB does not gather the ingredients, mix these ingredients, actually make the food, or do the final quality tests……what do they do?

Hey, I’m no fan of Purina but let’s face it, there are people who cannot afford a product with better nutrition than a grocer brand can provide. Is it better that these financially strapped families turn their loved four legged family members over to our crowded shelters because they can’t afford to feed them a premium brand? Oh, guess what they will eat in the shelter….Diamond brands or grocery.

Whenever this discussion is underway the comment I see most often is from people who’re doing their best, but say they can’t afford what they assume is better PF. But that’s really the essence of this entire issue, isn’t it? Perception.

Honestly a good way to make a decision about PF – AND – which price point works best for you, is to subscribe to the Petsumer Report. At least it lets you compare what you can afford. The best thing about the Petsumer Report (PR) is that it’s an educational process! Because questionable ingredients are further detailed (hyperlinked) as to why. In the end, it comes down to which PF is the lesser of all evils, as no food is perfect, or even close. For example, maybe you can live with all the variables listed, but canola oil or sodium selenite is being called out. If that PF has the kind of whole protein you’re looking for (among the first 5 ingredients), for the price point, then that makes for an informed decision.

The reason for this lawsuit is that perception without evidence (facts) means claims are worthless.

So then, the next level of discovery becomes making sure that what the label lists is accurate. That’s where “The Pet Food Test” will make the difference. People may find out that their perceived lower quality food is actually labeled more accurately than a “premium” brand (or not). But the importance of this effort, is that TAPF Followers are tired of all the hype, and now they’re taking action. In a big way!!

If you’re new to TAPF and just dropped in because of the high profile lawsuit discussion, then that’s great. But also check out this link at https://truthaboutpetfood.com/the-pet-food-test and also go to the funding site at at igg.me/at/thepetfoodtest

PF consumers are serious! In only 2 weeks (with a month left to go) over $11,300 has been donated. This is a chance to put the PFI on notice that even though they’re tempted to challenge one another, WE pet owners are even more serious. We only want the truth. We can deal with everything else.

So please share this opportunity with others!

Personally, I would not feed either Purina or Blue Buffalo. What would be really interesting is that if the law suit showed that both companies were unhealthy, and that both companies lie a lot. I doubt that will happen, not with high-paid lawyers who will find a way to cover up the truth. I can hope, anyway. It is one thing to note the poor ingredients on the can label, and another to actually discover the quality of ingredients; i.e., actual by-product contents, toxic chemicals, diseased animals, bacteria, fecal matter, GMO’s, etc. Since there are few AAFCO standards (except for nutrient profiles), the quality can differ considerably and can only be determined by actual analysis. Of course, another issue is the often extreme variance among batches.
The only way the truth will prevail, is that if unbiased third-party analysis is made. Susan Thixton is one of the few persons I would trust to do the job.

These links are the heart of the matter.:
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10018997/Patrick06.html?sequence=2 Also: http://landofpuregold.com/petfood-hodgkins.htm Expert testimony before the Senate by DR. E. Hodgkins, DVM, ESQ who was a higher-up for Hill’s Nutrition.

Leannan, CC, Peter, Regina, thank you for furthering this discussion, and especially for all the great arguments and links. People who make it this far into the thread, and continue to follow it (because it can be really draining) should focus on the entire discussion. The document “Deconstructing the Regulatory Facade” is dated 2006 but might as well be 2014 because of FDA Compliance Policies! And unless there’s a headline (like NP vs. BB) attracting the media’s nano-brief attention span, then who’s even aware of what goes on behind the scenes? That’s the problem!

Deceptive advertising no matter the company, means it’s not about “opinion” or “internet hearsay” or “publicity seeking” anymore. It is the reality of what the PFI has to hide! Otherwise PF companies would be reveling in their fantastic evidence based reputations! They would be topping over * one another * in order to PROVE their own products beyond a doubt. Not wasting money to disprove the competitor.

Not quite the case, huh.

What logical industry really does good business in that way??

These links are the heart of the matter. If you’re mad enough being deceived and prevented from making an informed choice, then refer to
https://truthaboutpetfood.com/the-pet-food-test. To date $12,000 has been donated by consumers who care. Because they aren’t fooling around anymore. No matter what you can afford, please join over 100 Funders who are making the statement that “we don’t trust you.”

We CAN reach 200 people by June!

Since “advice” is being thrown out into the Forum (and we all do it) please add this to the record. To “vet” is to “investigate” (a verb). To be “vetted” (adj.) would imply that something has been “investigated” except that “vetted” is not a word. “Consumer Affairs” is a collection of consumer comments, most of which are negative. It is a site where it’s been said that (1) competitors post bogus remarks to bias consumers. If so then it would still be pretty difficult to “guide” consumers to a particular brand instead. So it would seem to be a pretty big waste of time for “Trolls” to bother, unless they have nothing better to do with their time. The (2) second point is that (it’s been said) manufacturers can pay to correct their maligned reputation, or to at least provide a rebuttal on a consumer by consumer basis. Few do however, Probably because unless there is some factual evidence to the contrary, then what’s the point either?

Here’s the real problem. There are a LOT of dog food brands out there, thus there is an opportunity for a LOT of things to go wrong, and for a LOT of pets to be affected. It’s an open site so everybody is going to be making a comment about something. While the site may be useless to an individual (depending upon what is expected) it is still a way to read about many different experiences. Unfortunately (and to the discredit of the FDA) while PF reports are encouraged, a consumer can’t read about other reports made. There is no mandate for a manufacturer to respond. There is also no anchor point for EVIDENCE. Meaning you are not required to submit your complaint verified by the diagnosis or comments of your attending Veterinarian. All it can do, by way of collection, is develop a pattern of a manufacturer issues. The FDA will only act on those that fall within its jurisdiction (permission). And those are pretty minimal. This does NOT mean however that every adverse event shouldn’t be reported!

Keep in mind, one reason for so many PF complaints to exist in the first place, is that every pet can react differently (or more seriously) to adverse conditions in the product. Batches of PF vary greatly because of mycotoxins, endotoxins, exposure to toxic chemicals (cleaning agents, pesticides) filthy transport and storage systems. It would only take the putrid scrapping off of the manufacturing plant floor to be incorporated into a food batch (whether accidental or intentional) to detrimentally skew an entire “Lot” (location/date/pallet) of food. And to end up making a sensitive, puppy, elderly, or fragile pet even worse!

Until there comes to be an evidence based system of required reporting, tracking and manufacturer accountability, the ONLY thing that can be useful at all, are consumer experiences, in order for every pet owner to judge whether the brand under their attention, is or is not worth a certain level of risk. But know that the comments which do come into the author of this website (particularly on a personal, not necessarily published basis) are NOT driven by any other agenda than for helping to prevent another owner’s sad experience. And this is done by adding more background context to a developing issue which the author (in a future article) may write about.

Consumer Reports (which does accept reader comments in print) which “may” be useful for some product reviews in general, has no channel for collecting PF complaints, and NO interest in reviewing the honest status of PF manufacturing. In fact the 2011 article (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/august/money/pet-costs/dont-pay-a-premium-for-premium-pet-food/index.htm) which they DID publish, pretty much reveals their ignorance, or at least failure to be thoroughly educated. We have absolutely no way of knowng whether Consumer Reports “accepts” advertising or whether it can be pressured or warned against making whatever conclusions they arrive at. Any so-called study can be influenced by the nature and conditions of the effort, and the interpretation of results, and how those results are written up. I am not accusing CR, but neither would I trust my pet’s welfare to their analysis either.

It is (by the way) the nature of any public exchange of comments on a website for all information to be “taken with a grain of salt” in that everyone’s experience is personal and subjective. I would suggest that it is the INTENTION behind sharing the information which really counts most. And “most” people (the Followers of TAPF) having been involved for such a long time “usually” present the intention of helping one another. There would be no other kind of motivation that makes any sense! In fact, “Trolls” are usually and quickly identified, and given the “boot!”