In 2007, Nutro Pet Food stated probiotics were included in their pet foods. In 2013 a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of the probiotic claim in Nutro Pet Foods. In 2015, Nutro Pet Food is admitting no wrong doing, but have entered into a ‘Settlement Agreement’ with those that challenged their marketing claim.
The lawsuit settlement document states “The lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated the law by labeling and selling Nutro’s Ultra™ brand dry dog kibble (between April 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009) and/or Ultra™ brand dog biscuits (between April 1, 2007 and April 30, 2011) with a “Guaranteed Analysis” regarding the amount of Bacillus Species contained therein. Plaintiff believes he has viable claims, both individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers (excluding California consumers), against Defendants and Defendants believe they have valid defenses.”
In other words – the lawsuit claimed that between April 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009 Nutro Ultra dog foods included probiotics in the Guaranteed Analysis and the plaintiff found that the probiotics were not live or viable and thus of no health benefit to the pet consuming the food. Including a probiotic or any other ingredient or supplement in the pet food Guaranteed Analysis is the manufacturer ‘guaranteeing’ that nutrient or supplement is included in the pet food.
The Wayback Machine website provided examples of the Nutro Ultra’s probiotic claim. From 2007…
The Nutro Ultra website in 2007 stated: “Direct Fed Microbials. A source of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtillis that promote beneficial bacteria in a dog’s digestive tract.”
And the Wayback Machine did provide the Guaranteed Analysis statement from 2007 of Nutro Ultra Adult Dog Food; “Total Bacillus Species (min) 283 Million CFU/lb.”
So…the plaintiff in this lawsuit must have provided sufficient evidence to prove that the ‘direct fed microbials’ Nutro Ultra guaranteed on the pet food label were not actually in the pet food or were not viable. Mars Nutro Ultra agreed to a settlement, but the company does not consider the settlement “any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any kind”.
The settlement for consumer class members is “a $2.00 chicken or a $5.00 Gift Certificate towards the purchase of Nutro dog food products (Class Members can also elect to donate their claim to charity). Nutro also has agreed to pay court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses (in an amount not to exceed $375,000.00).”
Is $2.00 a fair reimbursement to consumers that believed the probiotic marketing claim of the pet food? No – certainly it is not. However, the settlement cost the pet food company a hefty sum for attorney fees ($375,000.00 plus their own attorney fees). We have to hope that lawsuits and settlements like this cost pet food companies enough to make then rethink their marketing claims. We have to hope.
If you purchased a Nutro Ultra dog food between April 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009 you can participate in the settlement by visiting this website: http://www.ultradogfoodsettlement.com/index
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
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 3000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2015 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
Marsha
September 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Maybe this will help with other dog food companies. Time to be honest on your dog food bags! Or we will come and get you.
Beth
September 11, 2015 at 5:52 am
I am by no means sticking up for the pet food companies because they are big business and basically all of them are globally sourcing their products – but I also think a lot of these claims/lawsuits are driven by consumers hoping to get a fast buck. This would have to be a dry probiotic – how could it be a live probiotic – as far as I know that would only be in a yogurt – etc.
I have also feed Blue Buffalo for years and have nothing but healthy pets – love the product, the company., the fact that they cold form a vitamin kibble and the price is a great value for what you get. Feel the same way about all those who have joined the class action suit against them. Just suing in this litigious society is wrong and proves nothing.
I think people also need to be wary of reports like this – The FDA is the official site for a recall, etc. – and I can remember a post awhile back on here about Blue being bought out by Mars – that has not happened as far as I know……….
Pacific Sun
September 11, 2015 at 3:45 pm
True this case involves Nutro not BB. But BB is hardly in a better place to be defended. They’re the folks who claimed no by-products then blamed the supplier instead of taking responsibility for testing ingredients before inclusion. It took a lawsuit to uncover their “oversight.” Probiotics can be in a PF just as long as the consumer doesn’t expect them to be of “particular value.” The Nutro lawsuit is about claiming just that. PF can not “CLAIM” much more than being formulated under AAFCO guidelines, and they do so by confirming a ratio of minimum percentages of required protein, fat, moisture & carbohydrates. What companies do in addition (to be competitive) is “imply” other benefits through images, descriptive language (i.e., tarter control) and human food (like) analogies! The Nutro settlement wasn’t an admission of (intentional) wrong doing, but they had to (or agreed to) pay court costs, and a minimum payback (coupon) to affected customers! For what was at stake I doubt the litigants would have gone to all the time, trouble and risk of expense to prove a minor point, except for the principle of misleading intention. It was the idea that another PF company has to be reigned in when it comes to promoting exceptional PF. Good for the Class Action suitors, and hopefully encourages other consumer watchdogs! That’s the real point. Frivolous litigation is probably the least apparent in the PFI because it’s such an uphill battle.
A Follower (with a Sheba Innu) on another thread has a new puppy looking for diet recommendations because of so much confusion. Sadly there are no (or few) responses. Because it’s tough, you can’t just rattle off a long list of brands that you’d be comfortable with every single day. It comes to choosing the lesser of so many evils. For convenience and economy kibble has to be choice many times. Okay but for optimal health then augment with whole, fresh foods, and/or rotated with raw. Owners should use different brands and formulas (recipes) not only so a pet will learn to eat variety, but to get a wide range of ingredients/nutrients. Too many pets are relegated to a single diet of the same brand/meal over and over again. That’s where problems begin. Pets can appear to be healthy (good at masking symptoms) but concerns arise during the aging process when they’re less able to self-correct. In the end, the fear is what will contribute (unnecessarily) to the premature demise of a pet. Human grade, dependable processing, plus a variety of whole food just helps tip the odds in their favor (long term).
Peter
September 13, 2015 at 8:15 am
I would suggest that the $375K spent on attorney’s fees is regarded by the parent company merely as an ordinary cost of business.