Life is never dull is it? My life is no exception. In this crazy world of pet food, here’s some correspondence I had recently with a Consumer Affairs representative and their lawyer…
On Monday, February 25, 2013 at 10:06 am I received the following message through the contact form on TruthaboutPetFood.com…
From: Jim Hood
Susan, I have not heard back from you regarding the libelous comments you made about ConsumerAffairs.com in the Hamlethub. You need to take care of this now.
Since I’m not affiliated with Hamlet Hub, I had not a clue what I was supposed to ‘take care of’. So I responded to Mr. Hood with…
I’ve not received an email from you – so I’m unaware of what this is about. Please explain.
Susan Thixton
And Mr. Hood promptly replied…
Susan,
If you look at your story on HamletHub.com — http://hamlethub.com/newtown-life/cat/adopt-a-pet/25566-are-the-complaints-about-beneful-pet-food-valid?fb_comment_id=fbc_314273312024363_1610857_332195666898794#f1a4dd1698c546a — you will see that I posted a response via Facebook to your libelous and reckless comments. I also sent my response via email to the address listed on the HamletHub site and got no response.
You need to get on this now.
/j
James R. Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com
A Consumers Unified, LLC property
297 Kingsbury Grade, Suite 1025, Mailbox 4470
Lake Tahoe, NV 89449-4470
t 866-773-0221
f 702 664-1312
I’m not sure why Mr. Hood didn’t contact Hamlet Hub, since this is the website he appeared to have a beef with. But, this is what I responded to him…
I’m not sure what you think I should do? What does “get on this now” imply? If you notice in the story I said that “It could be every single complaint on the Consumer Affairs website are legitimate reports of pet death or illness linked to Beneful, but only a few of these pet food adverse events were reported to FDA.” And then I said “It could be some of the complaints posted on the Consumer Affairs website are fictitious.” Please explain what you are asking me to do. And – this is the first message I have received from you. I don’t follow the comments on other sites that publish my stories.
Susan Thixton
But Mr. Hood did not see that I posted both sides and he didn’t seem to understand the point is to urge pet food consumers to report pet food adverse events to authorities…he emailed back again…
Susan, in your paragraph 2, you accuse us — based on no evidence — of fraud. Unless you immediately correct this and issue a retraction, we will turn this over to our lawyers.
It is outrageous to make a defamatory comment of that gravity without making even the slightest attempt to verify it.
/j
And I replied again…
I’m sorry Jim – but I didn’t accuse Consumer Affairs of anything. I know many pet owners turn to your site to post complaints – and the whole point of my story was to point out that FDA had not received but a small handful of complaints and to urge pet owners to always report to FDA. I never stated Consumer Affairs did anything wrong – I stated it “could” be all information on your site is true or it “could” be it wasn’t. Could. And I stated it both ways. I honestly do not understand your anger and threats to me. I’ll be certain to quote you word for word when I share this story with my readers.
Susan Thixton
And Mr. Hood of Consumer Affairs responded again…
“Could” is a strong word. It is basic journalism to check your facts before speculating in print. You basically accuse us of fraud. If you don’t understand that, you need to go back to journalism school.
Let me get this straight — are you refusing to retract your earlier story accusing us of dummying up complaints?
/j
And me again…
Jim,
Again, I did not accuse Consumer Affairs of anything. You are reading far too much into the word “could”. No, I did not accuse – basically or implied – Consumer Affairs of fraud. Again, my goal was to educate pet food consumers to report to FDA and their State Department of Agriculture any adverse pet food events.
Susan Thixton
And then I get the following email from attorney Cameron Stracher…
Ms. Thixton: I represent ConsumerAffairs.com, and I write in response to your January 18, 2013 post entitled “Are the Complaints About Beneful Pet Food Valid,” which is located at:
http://hamlethub.com/newtown-life/cat/adopt-a-pet/25566-are-the-complaints-about-beneful-pet-food-valid?fb_comment_id=fbc_314273312024363_1610857_332195666898794#f1a4dd1698c546a
As you know, ConsumerAffairs objects to your characterization of its reporting and disputes some of the conclusions you draw. We respectfully request that you provide ConsumerAffairs an opportunity to respond meaningfully to your post, and provide a prominent link within the post to the response so that your readers may easily view it.
Very truly yours,
Cameron.
Cameron Stracher
4 New York Plaza, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10004
4 North Pasture Road, Westport, CT 06880
To which I responded…
Cameron,
First of all, I did not characterize ConsumerAffairs in any way. Next, the Hamlet Hub website is not my website. I’m not the person to ask if you can post a response. That website share my posts to their pet food consumer readers – but I am in no way affiliated with that website. You will need to contact the folks at Hamlet Hub to ask them. Now, if you’d like to provide a response to me – yes I will post it on my website. Along with the threats that I received from your representative James Hood. Perhaps you’ll want to respond to his threats to me too. I will be posting James Hoods’ email threats to me within the next day or two – so I’ll need your response soon.
Susan Thixton
So as promised here is equal time provided to Consumer Affairs sent to me from attorney Cameron Stracher for Mr. Hood…
It is puzzling to see your recent blog posting which implies that ConsumerAffairs publishes fictitious reviews about Beneful pet food and, by extension, other products. To the best of my knowledge, you did not contact us or make any attempt to ascertain whether there was the slightest shred of truth in your post. This is hardly good journalistic practice and certainly does not serve the interests of pet owners, which I gather is the purpose of your endeavors.
It is no excuse to claim, as you have, that you are merely raising questions about “possibilities.” You clearly do just the opposite when you note that the FDA has averaged 2-4 complaints about Beneful over the past year while ConsumerAffairs had received “hundreds,” and you state that “some” people could construe ConsumerAffairs to be inventing complaints in order to “pressure” companies to sign up for its fee-based service.
For the record, it is not true that ConsumerAffairs employs an army of liars to make up reviews about consumer products. Nor is it true that we knowingly publish fictitious reviews. All submissions are tested against a set of guidelines intended to weed out counterfeit reviews. We cannot, of course, ensure that every consumer is perfectly accurate in recounting her or his experience with a product or service.
It is true that we have a program which offers companies the opportunity to engage with disgruntled consumers but I fail to see the nefarious motives that you assign to this function. There are basic, intermediate and advanced levels available, each with different price points. The purpose of this program is to make our site more valuable to consumers by helping them to resolve their complaint and to help ensure that other consumers do not encounter the same problems.
ConsumerAffairs was founded in 1998 to do exactly what it has done ever since – advance the cause of consumer empowerment and education.
Through our review process, we give consumers a means to share their experience with a wide range of products and services in the hope that over time this helps consumers make smart choices and motivates companies to do a better job of meeting their customers’ expectations.
We also maintain a stable of highly experienced journalists who cover topics of particular interest to consumers, helping to draw attention to current issues that need the attention of consumers, brands, regulators, lawmakers and the community at large.
As for the question of why our site has published, as of this writing, 425 complaints about Beneful pet food compared to a mere handful submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, I believe the answer is fairly obvious. Our site is widely read by millions of consumers and is a well-known forum where consumer issues are brought to light. It is very easy to submit a review to us, simply by clicking the “Write a Review” button that appears on every page of our site. Finding the complaint form on the FDA site is much more difficult.
Also, it is very easy to find reviews about a specific product on our site. A simple Google search is all that is usually required to go directly to the relevant page, where a consumer can read as many or as few as she wants. Complaints submitted to the FDA, on the other hand, go into what may as well be a black hole. They are not published and can be retrieved only through a Freedom of Information Act request, a process that is very time-consuming and often unsuccessful.
That being said, if you take the trouble to read the Jan. 8, 2013, news story we wrote about Beneful pet owners’ problems, you will find a section headed “Report problems.” In that section, we recommend that our readers not only contact the FDA, using the link in our article, but also that they retain the packaging and, if possible, a sample of the food that they believe made their animal sick, in hopes of helping the FDA to track down the source of the problem.
You might also notice in our Jan. 8 article this sentence: “Purina did not respond to a request for its response to the consumers’ reports.” Unlike your post, we at least attempted to give Purina the chance to respond to the issues raised in our story. It has been more than 50 years since I was in journalism school but I seem to recall that this is one of the cardinal rules of reporting. It might be one you should adopt.
And since this is my website – not Mr. Hoods – I get the final word…
Mr. Hood,
I commend Consumer Affairs for providing pet food consumers a place to post illness and or death reports of a pet believed to be linked to a pet food or treat. Since your website is such a well read location for pet food consumers, I ask you to take a more active role representing those readers. I ask Consumer Affairs to promote the Report It! Campaign initiated by consumer advocacy organization Association for Truth in Pet Food. I encourage you to become active with regulatory authorities such as attending/participating in AAFCO meetings, opening a dialogue with state and federal authorities to improve the safety of pet food. I encourage Consumer Affairs to promote transparency in the pet food industry such as the Pledge to Quality and Origin.
Changes in the pet food industry are greatly needed. Change begins with awareness of problems, but it doesn’t stop there. Awareness is the beginning – its what comes after that needs attention. You are in a position to draw much attention to more than reports of sick pets, you are in a position to use the Consumer Affairs name to improve the safety of pet food.
The next AAFCO meeting is in August in St. Petersburg, FL. I’ll be there advocating for my readers…will you?
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 2500 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
2013 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Woofielover
March 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Most of us read the original posting as you intended. After all this exchange above, Hood, and Consumer Affairs since he’s the spokesperson for them, look like idiots. “…Thou Doth Protest Too Much…” comes to mind when reading through Hood’s and his attorney’s side. Their credibility has dropped measurably.
Nina Wolf
March 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm
agreed, Woofielover. Why is Consumer Affairs fighting about this instead of taking the measures Susan suggests to hop on board and make significant change? Are we ALL not after the same goal here? Why the infighting?
Jess
March 11, 2013 at 1:29 pm
It would be nice if some good could come out of this and consumer affairs would be active at the next AAFCO meeting to represent their consumers and promote the transparency of pet food companies. THey do have a wide audience and could do a lot of good in the pet food world. The problem is that the vast majority of people still simply don’t know about the dangers of certain pet food, and it would be nice if everyone could collaborate on this common goal of keeping pets safe and spreading the word.
Madeleine Fisher Kern
March 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Lawyers and the corporations and their ilk who hire them are slowly attempting to diminish the people’s right to free speech. The idiocy of Consumer Affairs’ protest is blinding. They’re fighting what one could assume is their own side for reasons that are indecipherable. It becomes confusing as to what side they’re on and who’s filling their coffers.
Diane Rise
March 11, 2013 at 3:41 pm
You go girl! It’s one thing to sit back and throw stones and not be a part of an actual solution. But, YOU take the information you gather from a variety of sources….most importantly the pet parents and the healthcare providers of our furry family members, and then you actually are proactive and do the hard part on our behalf. He states that complaining to the FDA is like putting those complaints into a black hole. Well, I think I remember that this has been a feeling some have expressed on this website also, BUT, you have continued to do the hard work of being persistent with the FDA. Because, when push comes to shove, the bottom line is that the FDA has the real power that legally forces a change.
I worked for 30 years in a consumer protection position with a State Department of Agriculture. In enforcement there were two main “stakeholders”: the consumers and the producers. We were actually under a division called, “Consumer and Producer Protection”. But just as we see happening at the Federal Level, money talks. Agencies are more and more pressured to not upset the producers (business), because often times it’s the taxes on them that actually supports the programs. When they lobby against those taxes and the money is gone, programs are cut. Think of all of the lobbying money that is going into striking down many of our current consumer protection laws. They argue that the government doesn’t need to protect the consumer because, “the fox actually CAN guard the hen house”…wink, wink. That is why I was proud to see that it was the New York Dept. of Ag. who actually discovered the illegal antibiotics found in the chicken from China. I suspect there was pressure put on them to not put the spotlight on this. And I also suspect that the actual frontline inspectors had to fight to get the information made public. Federal budget cuts will further reduce the current small number of inspectors at the Federal level. That makes inspections at the State and even lower levels so much more important. But their budgets are being significantly reduced also. In both cases the cuts should be taken out at the upper management levels and inspectors should be increased.
Bottom line is, there is no moral or ethical excuse to not protect the consumer. Those inspectors who are actually out there finding the problems, need to be publicly supported. Don’t blame them for not doing their jobs, because as problems they find work their way through the levels of enforcement, in many cases someone at the upper level makes a decision to go no further. The inspectors believe in what they do. Why wouldn’t they, they are consumers too. I would like to send a formal thank you to all of the people involved in the New York investigation that confirmed what all of the consumers on this website and others have been screaming at the top of our lungs for years.
Yes, contact the producer of the product you have found a problem with, but realize that their desire to take widespread action (without further government enforcement) involves a potentially large financial cost to them. In other words they probably need a little further “encouragement” to take action. And remember, the squeakier the wheels are, the more grease they get. I suggest you contact Susan @ this website and also send a formal complaint to your State Department of Agriculture and CC a copy to Susan.
Thank you Susan for doing the difficult job you’ve taken on.
Mary
March 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm
It seems like James Hood has a bone to pick with you and obviously can’t read what your article said. He is very ego driven. We, as educated pet consumers, are not going to go away. So James Hood I think it would be in your best interest to not threaten or harass TheTruthaboutpet food.com. We are a united group that WILL fight back. And the rhetoric back and forth DOES make them look like complete idiots. You need to do your job and focus on what you are being paid to do, Mr. Hood. Your EGO perhaps needs to ratchet down a few notches.
Roger
March 11, 2013 at 3:55 pm
I am a retired united states attorney. I was a federal attorney for 32 years. I would like to address Mr. Hood’s comments. First of all, Mr. Hood, the comments were not libelous. Just because you were upset with the language used, it does nit make the statements libelous. I suggest that you learn the legal definition of the term before you start accusing someone of libel. Second, the first amendment allows individuals to express their opinions, even if you don’t like them. Third, your tone of your letter was disrespectful and bullying. Wouldn’t it had been more productive if you had just called or written and just discussed your thoughts with Ms. Thixton? I wonder what is going on in your life that made you choose the method you used.
Mary
March 11, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Thank you. It is nice to see an attorney view and post his support. Thank you for making it clear that we cannot be threatened with lawsuits as Susan has done nothing wrong.
Bazia
March 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Well said. Thanks for supporting Ms Thixton.
Marsha
March 11, 2013 at 7:56 pm
All I can say is what my grandfather always said, “I’ve heard ducks fart in water before.” Got to love my grandpa.
David Epperson
March 13, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Susan is my cousin and I support her completely in this matter. I believe this must be a false front group against pet safety.
wellwell
March 17, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Well, it is nice to see that all attorneys are not shitheads! thank you for your post based totally on intelligence and common sense. As well as a firm grasp of the 1st Amendment and free speech! Bravo Roger!
now to Mr Hood? Might I suggest a job at the front desk of the DMV?
Reisha Sandwell
March 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Dear Susan,
Thank you for your tenacity and outstanding efforts to keep our cherished pets safe. Gratefully, Reisha
Angelis Jara
March 11, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Same old Not Me, Never!” Our food is safe.You can’t touch us & the FDA backs us up!
Well, my dog got sick. I reported it. Heard nothing. just as I suspected.
dmiller
March 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm
“We cannot, of course, ensure that every consumer is perfectly accurate in recounting her or his experience with a product or service.”
Doesn’t their statement re-iterate your point? I thought the whole point was that the FDA wasn’t taking complaints on their site seriously because they could be fictitious, so people should be reporting to the FDA as well.
I never once read any of your statements as implicit or implied criticism of them. Now they don’t look so pure. I think I will go google them to see if anyone has made those explicit charges against them.
They should all go and take some deep cleansing breaths and reread a few dozen times.
Ian
March 11, 2013 at 4:11 pm
I was not familiar with “Consumer Affairs” before, and now I certainly have a very negative impression of them. Public Relations FAIL ! Thanks for posting the whole exchange, Susan.
Lori S.
March 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Well put and exactly what I was thinking. A storm of legal bullying only soaks the complainant.
Toni P
March 11, 2013 at 4:13 pm
I don’t think he read a word of it himself. He found an opportunity to spew and he can’t let go. He’s trying to intimidate. That’s what bullies do. It’s only HIS free speech that should be allowed?
FM
March 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm
A quick Google search of Mr. Hood indeed confirms this man protests just a tad too much for me to ever take this site seriously. It seems Mr. Hood spends a lot of his time trolling the internet for mentions of his beloved “legitimate” website.
As I’m sure we have all gathered from the emails above, most of Mr. Hood’s responses to these mentions are true journalistic genius. Mr. Hood, big props to you. It is brilliant and newsworthy to bash the intelligence and education levels of anyone questioning your website. As much as it hurts me, I must submit it is true that Mr. Hood is more intelligent than all of us.
For the disbelievers, let me provide you a few examples so that you may bask in this man’s glory:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2007/02/consumeraffairs.html
http://efoodalert.blogspot.com/2008/04/nutro-news.html http://priuschat.com/threads/consumeraffairs-com-plagiarism.18573/
Everyone reading this site should probably enroll in journalism school so that we may begin to understand the true genius that is Mr. Hood.
By the way, Mr. Hood, since you’re sure to show up here, can you please explain the alleged plagiarism posted on the Prius website? I noticed that you ignored that little problem when responding in favor of touting your site’s crystalline journalistic credibility. I, as one of your peons who did not go to journalism school, would greatly appreciate it.
The Dog Show with Julie Forbes
March 11, 2013 at 8:15 pm
I wonder what Mr. Hood’s two dogs eat.
…and based off of his quote – he just considers Susan Thixton another “Blowhard” or “Con-Artist”.
The whole dialogue is strange to begin with – since his allegations are false. Susan, you should promise to go to “Journalism School” if Mr. Hood promises to go to “Listening School”. And maybe a few others. 🙂 Keep up the good work!
Larry
March 11, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Just 2 more reasons to shut down ALL law schools.
These 2 people (?) SHOULD be put to work. Real work.
Maybe they COULD be trained to clean out litter pans ?
Sam
March 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Hmmm, maybe it would be good to ask Mr Hood & his attornies if they (Consumer Affairs) bother to go after pet food companies like they are going after you. Many times I have seen pet food companies say the info on Consumer Affairs site is false but I have yet to see COnsumer Affairs threatening them. Not saying their claims are false, just saying they seem to be going after you instead of the true culprits. Knock it off, Consumer Affairs, you are causing me to lose respect for your site.
Larry
March 11, 2013 at 4:57 pm
IMHO and to phrase it politely, lawyers are as useful as mammary glands on a legless reptile (are snakes true reptiles ? … not to sure about that). I had a friend who’s father would also say to him: “Iffen yer lookin for sympathy, it’s between shit and suicide in the dictionary. We all used to laugh so hard, it took us all about 10 years to get around to checking up on this. Thinking back, it’s STILL funny ! I’m sure this fellow would have something funny to say about the current proliferation of this type of cockroach.
Pacific Sun
March 11, 2013 at 5:01 pm
This has truly become an overly litigious society if all “speculative” website exchanges (blogs, conversation and responses!) are being subjected to (and therefore monitored for) the opportunity to automatically indict and make threats against writers, based on the interpretation of a single party (in this case CA). The nature of the internet, including it’s universality, access and open ended opinion opportunities, is based purely upon “freedom of speech.” Articles written broadly, however examining multiple sides of an issue, leave final assumptions in the minds of the readers. So how could a website owner be held responsible for another individual’s conclusions? That said, there is nothing even definitive in the wording of this article, in order to present a variety of possibilities, (that’s kinda the point after all!) regarding the Benefunl/CA issue and the usefulness of product reviews. So, rather than the CA’s owner rebutting the issue (as it has) with so obviously over-kill “threats,” why not just request to state another viewpoint? TAPF readers are open minded and consider all information. Aferall, CA is supposed to be uniquely objective in the first place, (is it not?), so why would a counter viewpoint be taken in any other way than for what it is worth? I agree with the other poster in that this objection does protest too much. However, what’s actually happened here, is that the body of (negative and suspicious) reader responses has been lumped together with the objective written article, and by inference, has attributed all those ideas directly to the TAPF’s author (who may or may not agree with them). Again, the author can not be held responsible for every reader’s possible interpretation or opinion. But more importantly, there is nothing in the article itself to “lead” a reader to a forced conclusion. The most controversial statement in the entire and very short article is the following sentence: ” .. (while) ConsumerAffairs.com has to make a living, but some interpret this fee-based service could result in fictitious complaints to pressure businesses to join.” All CA needed to do was to counter this “idea” with fact and/or a statement. So that all points of view can be fairly represented … end of discussion. Instead and for some strange reason, why is it necessary bother “threaten” in the first place, and therefore issue yet another attempt to shut down (and intimidate) the voice of the truth about pet food. And, afterall, isn’t the heart of the matter about pet food itself? And do we even have the time anymore, to care about, way too many …. tools of the trade??
Nancy Bohan
March 11, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Susan,
Thank you for the thoughtful and factual way in which you represent all of us who care for our pets and what they eat. You “do battle” for us each and every day. And do so with grace, intelligence and tenacity.
Like Ian I had been unfamiliar with “Consumer Affairs.” Mr. Hood’s tone of threatening and bullying was completely unnecessary.
I too am left with a negative impression.
Thank you for publishing the exchange and thank you for all that you do each and every day.
-Nancy
Paula Higgins
March 11, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Wow – I think Mr. Hood must have been one of those kids who was always in the nurse’s office in elementary school in order to skip the subject he did not like. Clearly he needs to go back to school and actually sit through the vocabulary lessons, something we studied on a weekly basis when I was in school. He is way out on a ledge all by-himself with his unwarrented attack on Susan over the use of the word “could”. With all the unemployed folks out there surely someone can be found to replace Mr. Hood who has both the ability to comprehend what they read and some common sense. Stay tough Susan – I appreciate all you do for our furry family members.
Amy
March 11, 2013 at 5:17 pm
this quote is noteworthy, seems to me Mr Hood might want to take time to reflect.. seeing that many of the people who know their food is poisoned have done their research. we’re not trusting even when a consumers watch dog is being what he describes.. eh?
“Most people are way too trusting, way too polite and not nearly inquisitive enough. If everyone spent a little time reading worthwhile history, science and journalism instead of listening to blowhards and con artists, the American middle class wouldn’t be imploding quite so quickly.”
Jim Hood
Founder and Editor
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/about/staff/jim-hood/
Lena
March 11, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Ironic, they accuse you of making false accusations that make them look bad yet their “understanding” of your writing and threats is what really made them look bad.
carole
March 11, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Interesting in how they include and use personal insults and name calling in their emails to you. The MO of BIG BIZ, could it be dog food companies behind it all?
BorderPundit
March 11, 2013 at 5:47 pm
One wonders the degree to which any particular consumer advocacy organization is influenced by, or funded by, businesses.
Susan Thixton
March 11, 2013 at 5:56 pm
I can tell you that this website – and me – is not funded by, or influenced by any business. Consumers and only consumers support my work and this website. I respect what many pet food companies do (such as those that have provided their Pledge) – but I don’t work for them. I work for consumers. And I hope/believe that most consumer advocates are the same. And that goes for Association for Truth in Pet Food too – 100% consumer supported.
BorderPundit
March 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Susan, thank you. I believe you.
Lynn
March 12, 2013 at 8:55 am
Way to go Susan! And my thanks as many others have given for your continued fight for our beloved pets!
Tanya
March 12, 2013 at 11:35 am
BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR WORDS!!!! COULD IS A STRONG WORD!!! Oh I’m about to die laughing, hold on….
Diane Esther
March 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
“Say no more, say no more.” Monty Python
Tracy Janzen
March 11, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Well said Roger, thank you for your support. Thank you Susan for your determination, your refusal to be bullied, and your continuing advocacy on behalf of all pet owners. You go girl!
Diane M
March 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm
I think that Mr. Hood and his merry band of litigous idiots should spend half the time they spent arguing your article on representing the consumers and pets that can’t help themselves. Good God! Really?? Thank you Susan, I can’t imagine how many of these types of people you must deal with on a regualr basis.
al
March 11, 2013 at 7:59 pm
This jim hood is just some guy trying to throw his weight around threatening with lawyers because he makes his living lying to consumers about his products. Asking someone to remove a comment because they are scared someone may find out the truth, tells you everything you need to know. Jim hood has a terrible product.
Pet lovers wake up. Don’t buy commercial Big Pet Food. Buy from small companies or find food for your pets. There is canned fish, canned chicken, canned beef, etc to mix with cooked cooked sweet potatoes for fiber, fresh or frozen green beans, green peas, etc. Avoid canned foods with salt. As salt will cause diarrhea.
If pet lovers stop spending money at Big Commercial Pet Food, it will change.
If you continue to fund them by buying their pet food, they will sell pet food that will make your pets sick or kill them.
Take your money and buy human food for pets or buy from small pet food companies that care more about quality. Or combine both.
Ian
March 11, 2013 at 8:07 pm
I followed one of the previous poster’s links to a Prius forum story, and in that link someone highlights a FAQ on CA website “are you hooked up with lawyers in some way” and the CA answer is “Yes, lawyers read the complaints submitted to us by consumers. On occasion, the lawyers will find something they believe could form the basis of a class action suit on behalf of consumers. If a consumer has indicated on their complaint form that they want to be contacted by a lawyer, they then research the issue and, now and then, contact the consumer and file suit on his behalf. Since our founding, hundreds of class action suits have been filed on behalf of consumers…”
So it seems like another important audience for CA is in fact lawyers trolling for class action lawsuits. Unfortunately it’s been my personal experience that any class action lawsuits I’ve been included in, have provided very negligible results for the individual consumer, but big payouts to the lawyers.
Roger
March 11, 2013 at 11:37 pm
Ian,
You are correct about the nature of class action lawsuits. If the class is large, the benefits to the members is usually negligible. The attorneys make immense fees, but the individual members get small payouts, such as in security (stockholder) cases. The only class action cases that really benefit the class members from a financial standpoint are cases where the number of members are relatively small and the amount of damages are large, such as airplane crashes. Still, class actions have some deterrents to a company because they cost them a lot of money to defend, even when the individual payouts to the class members are small.
Jose A. Carmona
March 11, 2013 at 9:34 pm
I agree with everyone. I think that these two individuals need to go back to work. It seems that they don’t have enough to do in the office. Shame!
Sam
March 11, 2013 at 9:56 pm
I think Mr Hood needs to re-read what your website is all about. At one time, Consumer Affairs was trying to get to the bottom of all the complaints about Nutro making pets sick, posted at their website. Too bad he cant see and read that your website tries to do the same. Your site tries to help consumers just like Consumer Affairs used to do. I remember very clearly Nutro saying the claims by Consumer Affairs were false, did Consumer Affairs go after Nutro for those claims? No they didnt. Consumer Affairs is trashing their reputation by this “thug” type behavior & Mr Hood needs to take some anger management classes.
Pingback: More Problems With Blue Buffalo - Page 4 - Maltese Dogs Forum : Spoiled Maltese Forums
Kim Young
March 11, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Sure doesn’t make them look good…they look like the neighborhood bullies. Your response was great.
steph gas
March 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm
i agree. i thought the ca website seemed like a positive thing for people to share concerns and complaints. now i’m not so sure.
but thanks susan for fighting for us and our pets 🙂
PAUX
March 14, 2013 at 5:32 am
Mr. Hood stated that their site allows the companies involved to “engage with disgruntled customers”. They allow the complaints to be crossed out on their site by encouragement of the companies. This is not engagement, it is censorship. His site gives the power to the companies and disallowes the voice and concerns of the public. It also is very disingenuous when positive comments from months way in the past are placed suddenly in front of the current ones on his sites. Sorry, he is no Ralph Nader or an avocate for the public when these tactics are employed.
Concerned
March 12, 2013 at 12:06 am
While I don’t agree with everything Susan says or does, I whole heartedly disagree with everything about Consumer Affairs. To allow anyone and everyone to make any statement on their site with absolutely no proof then to charge the accused money for the ‘right’ to defend themselves is simple blackmail. If Consumer Affairs truly cared about the consumer, they would not be trying to profit from the misfortunes of others. It would not be of any use to have anyone representing Consumer Affairs attending meetings to better the pet food industry because while the average consumer may not know what Consumer Affairs is about, everyone in the pet food industry does and the lack if respect for them would only hurt the cause. Why doesn’t Consumer Affairs personally respond to each of the consumers who writes a complaint on their site telling them the appropriate channels for their complaints? They say it’s too difficult to report to the FDA, but if I felt my pet got sick or died from the food he ate, I would surely be willing to spend a few minutes of my day to take action that would provide real results, not just a complaint board online that will do no good. On the contrary, sites like Consumer Affairs belittles real issues. They do no favors by what they do and how they do it.
Samantha
March 12, 2013 at 12:57 am
Wow! Mr. Hood’s lack of reading comprehension is embarrassing. They have no legal grounds for asking you to retract anything. Your statement was speculative–it *could* happen, not it *is* happening. My ex-husband was sanctioned for sending a groundless C&D letter for a client. Mr. Hood and his lawyers might want to tread carefully before issuing any type of legal threat like this.
Annie
March 12, 2013 at 3:10 am
Susan;
Any “honest” attorney worth his/her salt will send such a communiqué to you via certified mail!
Unless threatening in its context, correspondence on the ‘www’ is not to be taken to heart, nor is it ever truly legal, by definition.
Your Mr Hood is a caricature of fear.
I believe him to be a bully, (which *is* an internet crime).
In closing Susan, please look up the legal definition of barratry. Though archaic, it is not without relevance here.
Furthermore, I am not an attorney, but I believe the punishment for such to be disbarment.
Bonnie
March 12, 2013 at 4:51 am
Back in my neophyte on line days I posted something on their site- I guess I must have check the box for legal help as I immediately got a lawyer asking me to hire him for a consultation.
My aversion to lawyers (based on many many experiences with them- most of them I hired) made me run away from their site and not post anything again.
SHARON KINSEY
March 12, 2013 at 5:07 am
Susan,
Lawyers like Mr. Hood is the reason I chose to close my law practice and raise sheep (I am serious). I praciced consumer fraud in California and had a really terrific time suing car dealers, mfgs, and any business that defrauded the public. Anyway – if you ever need me to write a letter for you and quote the real law to any of these dodo birds let me know. No charge.
Susan Thixton
March 12, 2013 at 9:00 am
Thank you – I’m sending you an email now!
Heidi
March 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
This:
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Love it. Such a base and stupid attack without an obvious understanding of the situation says it all. Mr. Hood should not attempt to threaten or bully people who are smarter than he is, or at least possess the ability to read for comprehension.
Tanya
March 12, 2013 at 11:28 am
HAHAHA “could is a strong word”… I’ll never forget that quote… basically sums up the intelligence level right there. “Could” is about as far from “strong” as you can get! Isn’t this a country where we have freedom of speech or something? You should be able to post “could” lines all day long about whatever you want because it’s not an actual statement of fact. “Could” implies a question, or a doubt, not an accusation. And consumers should be encouraged to question. What a bunch of idiots.
Ellie
March 12, 2013 at 4:33 pm
I’m far to busy to read Mr Hood’s response on your website. I despise people who threaten law suits because they don’t like the way you write. The word “could” is defined in most dictionaries and I would suggest that Mr Wood find one soon. He not only has a lack of reading comprehension ability but he also seems very threatened by the opinion of one woman. Maybe someone should take the time to explain to him what libelous actually means and then find out how it pertains to Consumer Affairs.
Gina
March 12, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Wow. I’d like to draw attention to the parallel (thus sensitivity) of accusations agains the BBB (better business beareau) for being biased towards paying members ect….similar to what I think this gentleman read into your article. When I read it, I was thinking that competitors could be the ones adding fake complaints, not the website…BUT NOW, I’m kinda suspicious. And Susan, YOU BETTER COMMENT ON MY COMMENT NOW!!!! Hahahaha…..
Peter
March 12, 2013 at 5:56 pm
I read the original posting on TAPF and did not take the meaning that Mr. Hood postures at all… in fact, the original post advocated a balanced and thorough approach to the issue, so that the FDA would have information.
Nita
March 12, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Might the FDA not find Mr. Hood’s comments about them libelous?!
Robin
March 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm
“Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion…. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit” from law.com
“Could” doesn’t meet that criteria in my book. I am not an attorney but I did go to journalism school. Anbody can threaten. It does not mean they have a case.
Eon’t worry Susan, we’ve got you covered.
Karen Ray
March 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Let’s see, what do we have here? A site called Consumer Affairs that publishes powerful, often insulting and accusatory customer criticisms against a wide variety of services and products, which then threatens legal action against someone who dares to politely critique their site by voicing the truth about the obvious potential for falsity. How hypocritical and ludicrous.
Perhaps, Susan, you should just charge a few hundred dollars to give Mr. Hood a chance to defend his service – as the Consumers Affairs site does to others.
Isn’t that how we handle criticism, Mr. Hood? By charging others big money to defend their reputations? What would your response be if those criticized on your site threatened you with legal action for libel? Your motto appears to be, “Free speech for me, but not for thee.” I would suggest you grow up, because, in my opinion, you’re behaving very childishly. You need to take care of this now.
pat
March 13, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Wow!!!! seems to me they have way too much time on their hands……i loved “could is a strong word”!!!! LMAO!!! these two need to get real jobs. a reality check is way over due……….
Jen
March 17, 2013 at 7:43 pm
“Our site is widely read by millions of consumers and is a well-known forum where consumer issues are brought to light. It is very easy to submit a review to us, simply by clicking the “Write a Review” button that appears on every page of our site. Finding the complaint form on the FDA site is much more difficult.”
Maybe the answer to help not only the consumer but themselves would be to make it just as easy to find that link to the FDA after making the complaint on their site rather than waiting to post it in an article after the fact.
If any form can tell you to “Now post to Facebook!” after your submission a “Now submit to the FDA!” should be just as simple!
Ellie
March 18, 2013 at 8:49 am
It does appear that their site gives the consumer a false sense that they have made an official attempt to report a serious issue while actually the site does nothing to help remedy the problem. It actually helps to prevent the consumer from making a valid report.
Tanya
March 28, 2013 at 11:24 am
I generally agree with you, but there’s a slight problem with your assessment (coming from a technical standpoint). Facebook WANTS people to post there, so they provide the means to make this process easy. I don’t think we can say the same about the FDA. I don’t think they WANT us to post there, so they do NOT make it easy on purpose. Facebook provides the “post to facebook” buttons and instructions on how to use it. Does the FDA do that? Heck no! So yeah, not as easy. But I do wish it were!
Rita
March 27, 2013 at 10:49 pm
Here is an interesting link that alleging that ConsumerAffairs.com charges companies $299 per month to join their “reputation mangagement program”.
http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.consumeraffairs.com
My firsthand experience is that I had a bad experience with Natural Balance, posted it on ConsumerAffairs.com and immediately got a written response and phone call from NB. Several months later my review had been deleted stating “no proof this is true”. There are a ton of Natural Balance reviews that have been deleted which makes me think they participate in the reputation management program.
Ellie
March 28, 2013 at 9:42 am
Wow. I agree with Susan that issues need to be reported to the proper agency but what if people want to warn others of possible issues? It seems this Consumer Affairs gets paid to block any attempt to warn or rectify.
2.3 Turbo SVO
May 21, 2013 at 12:18 am
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching
for Beneful
Elfo
August 9, 2013 at 5:36 pm
As soon as you received a threatening letter, you should have turned it over to your attorney. That is not suspicious, that is, in our overly litigious society, practical.