Obtained through FOIA request, one email raises concerning questions about AAFCO’s ties with the pet food industry.
That one email is evidence AAFCO had contact with and appeared to have provided helpful information to a pet food manufacturer that was being sued by a pet owner.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents received by Kohl Harrington (producer of Pet Fooled), pet owners can see for themselves what AAFCO does behind the scenes (appearing to act on behalf of pet food manufacturers).
Here’s the email:
The story behind this email and why this is such damning evidence.
Hint: it has nothing to do with my name being mentioned.
On November 8, 2017 AAFCO was subpoenaed to provide information to a law firm that was representing a pet owner suing a pet food company. The pet owner (the Plaintiff) was suing Ainsworth Pet Nutrition/Rachael Ray Nutrish pet food (the Defendant) for claims of “natural” on the label and in marketing (quoting lawsuit): “when many of them contain chemicals and artificial and/or synthetic ingredients, which are well-known unnatural, artificial additives and preservatives.”
The FOIA documents obtained reveal that AAFCO was subpoenaed by the pet owner’s attorney to provide:
“Pursuant to our previous agreement, we have conducted an electronic search of records in AAFCO’s custody and control using the following search parameters:
1. Search: Vitamin OR mineral OR synthetic OR chemical AND natural
2. Search: Grimm
3. Search: APN OR Ainsworth Pet Nutrition OR K&L Gates OR Ellen Darling OR
Caitlan Blanche OR Andrew Gahan OR Nutrish OR Rachel Ray“
The AAFCO response to the subpoena is insignificant, but to read the AAFCO subpoena draft response (provided in FOIA documents), Click Here.
It’s what AAFCO did prior to this subpoena response that raises significant concerns…
As explanation, the names listed in the following emails and their roles associated with AAFCO are:
Ken Bowers of Kansas Department of Agriculture, AAFCO President in 2017, AAFCO Board of Directors member. The Defendant, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, owns a manufacturing facility in Kansas.
Ali Kashani of Washington State Department of Agriculture, AAFCO Board of Directors member, AAFCO President in 2003.
Tish Pahl of OFW Law, attorney representing AAFCO for this subpoena.
Arthur Tsien of OFW Law, another attorney representing AAFCO.
Jeremy Holzner, Executive Director of FASS. FASS stands for Federation of Animal Science Societies of which AAFCO is a member.
Kevin Wolter, Director, Information & Technologies at FASS Inc.
Jennifer Roland of FASS, handled most of FASS’s AAFCO business responsibilities.
The first email was from Kevin Wolter. The email simply mentions the subpoena and was sent to AAFCO lawyer Tish Pahl, along with cc-ing AAFCO lawyer Arthur Tsien, Jennifer Roland, Ken Bowers AAFCO President at the time and state feed official, AAFCO Board Member and state feed official Ali Kashani, and the Director of FASS Jeremy Holzner:
“From: Kevin Wolter
Date: Fri, Dec 15, 2017 5:19 PM
To: Tish Pahl;
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Jennifer Roland; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani;
Subject: RE: Privileged and confidential
The “Subpoena to AAFCO in Grimm v. APN.pst” contains the result of these searches in a single Outlook accessible file. The file contains subfolders for the various results.”
Approximately two weeks later, AAFCO lawyer Tish Pahl responded back to all participants about comments from a petition posted on the AAFCO website that met the search terms of the subpoena.
“From: Tish Pahl
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 2:06 PM
To: Kevin Wolter; Jennifer Roland
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani
Subject: Production question
Second, with the petition comments that you copy and pasted, what petition is this? I’ve reviewed the comments and they do contain responsive information but I was wondering about the context and the petition itself.”
Response from FASS to the same group, same day:
“From: Kevin Wolter
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 3:41 PM
To: Tish Pahl; Jennifer Roland
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani
Subject: RE: Production question
The petition file was uploaded to the FeedBIN by Susan Thixton on 07/08/2016. Ali or Ken, can you answer what this file is and where it came from? I have attached the file to this email as the version on the FeedBIN can be difficult to read. If you want to see the original file then search the FeedBIN for “petition comments.txt”.”
Another response regarding the petition, same day:
“From: Jennifer Roland
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Kevin Wolter; Tish Pahl
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani
Subject: RE: Production questionTish
It was posted to the Pet Food Label Modernization workgroup that AAFCO has in the Feed BIN. The workgroup is working on trying to update Pet Food Labels. I believe it was a petition that she conducted herself through her website.”
And a response from the AAFCO lawyer regarding the petition:
“From: Tish Pahl
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:28 AM
To: Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Jennifer Roland; Kevin Wolter
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani
Subject: RE: Production question
Thank you. Is it possible to get a copy of Susan Thixton’s petition?”
Response from the AAFCO secretary regarding “Susan Thixton’s petition”:
“From: Jennifer Roland
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:33 PM
To: Tish Pahl; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Kevin Wolter
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Jeremy Holzner; Ali Kashani
Subject: RE: Production question
Tish
I do not believe so. Susan is no longer an advisor to our committees so AAFCO currently does not have a good relationship with her. I am not sure she would give it to us if we asked.”
Which leads us to THE email (pictured above):
“From: Tish Pahl
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 9:36 AM
To: Jennifer Roland; Bowers, Ken [KDA]; Kevin Wolter
Cc: Arthur Tsien; Jeremy Holzner; Kashani, Ali (AGR)
Subject: RE: Production question
Privileged and confidential
Thank you for that information. Counsel for APN/Ainsworth suggested that there was an individual – who I believe is Susan Thixton – who had difficulties with AAFCO and could re-emerge as an advisor or expert for the plaintiffs.”
Why is the above email so significant?
This email serves as evidence AAFCO had contact with and appeared to have provided helpful information to a pet food manufacturer that was being sued by a pet owner.
The AAFCO lawyer stated “Counsel for APN/Ainsworth suggested…” This statement confirms that either by phone or email – the AAFCO representative had communication with Ainsworth pet food’s attorney regarding the lawsuit, BEFORE the subpoena response was provided to the pet owner’s attorney.
Was it illegal for AAFCO (their representative) to contact the Ainsworth pet food lawyer regarding the pet owner’s summons?
No, it doesn’t appear to be illegal. From Legal.io: “You should normally do this if the adverse party has a personal or privacy interest in the information requested by the subpoena. If the adverse party does, in fact, have such an interest, it may file a motion to quash the subpoena. For example, if you are an accounting firm, and the party served you with a subpoena requesting sensitive documents concerning a business transaction involving the adverse party, the adverse party may file a motion to quash the subpoena.“
But was it ethical? Should AAFCO and/or their representative have communicated with Ainsworth pet food regarding the lawsuit? Or should AAFCO have just fulfilled the subpoena request and let the cards fall where they may for Ainsworth pet food?
AAFCO is an organization whose members regulate pet food (FDA and State Department of Agriculture). The AAFCO President at the time, Ken Bowers, included in these emails, is employed by Kansas Department of Agriculture; Ainsworth Pet Nutrition has a manufacturing facility in Kansas.
Again, should an organization consisting of regulatory authorities communicate with a pet food manufacturer about a consumer lawsuit? Should a regulatory authority of the state the pet food manufacturer is located in communicate with the pet food manufacturer regarding a consumer lawsuit?
Personal opinion: Absolutely not. AAFCO should have simply responded to the subpoena with no communication with Ainsworth pet food. It is beyond concerning the opposite happened.
Also of concern – no one in the email chain questioned the AAFCO communication with the Ainsworth pet food attorney. It appeared to be accepted – as normal procedure – by all parties involved.
The only thing that was said (or at least the only thing provided in the FOIA documents) – approximately 20 minutes after the email from the AAFCO attorney confirming communication with Ainsworth pet food’s attorney – was the following email that was just between the two AAFCO Board members:
“From: Bowers, Ken [KDA]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 9:52 AM
To: Kashani, Ali (AGR)
Subject: RE: Production question
This isn’t a great development with Susan’s name coming up.”
Ken Bowers was right, ‘this isn’t a great development’. But it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with AAFCO – an organization that claims to be independent – that appears to have assisted a pet food manufacturer with their lawsuit.
By the way, the petition comments I shared with AAFCO back in 2016 was 77,512 consumer comments from this Petition. The petition asked AAFCO and FDA to provide pet food quality of ingredient information to pet owners. The comments were also provided to AAFCO and FDA on a flash drive. Neither AAFCO or FDA responded to the 77,512 pet owner comments.
If you believe AAFCO’s behavior was unethical, please take action.
Tell the FDA they must immediately end their relationship with AAFCO due to email evidence proving AAFCO’s close ties to the pet food industry. Email FDA at: AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov
Tell your Representatives in Congress FDA must immediately end their relationship with AAFCO due to email evidence proving AAFCO’s close ties with the pet food industry. To find your Representatives in Congress Click Here.
Tell your State’s Governor to immediately withdraw from participating in AAFCO due to email evidence proving AAFCO’s close ties with the pet food industry.
All pet owners deserve better than this. Please voice your opinions about AAFCO to all listed above.
One more thing about AAFCO: All pet food regulations and ingredient definitions are owned by AAFCO. The organization charges $120.00 a year for anyone to read. Pet owners have NO public access to understand the ingredients they are providing their pet. Pet Fooled producer Kohl Harrington challenged this lack of public access in the state of Illinois which has resulted in a lawsuit filed by Mr. Harrington to gain access (on behalf of pet owners) to this vital information. To read the lawsuit, Click Here.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
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 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2020 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
