Law requires government to provide answers, but there are other things ‘they’ can do to stop a pesky consumer advocate from asking questions. The corruption in pet food continues.
It was a simple enough question. Through Freedom of Information Act request, Missouri Department of Agriculture was asked for emails, phone records, and contracts between Mr. Stan Cook (Missouri Department of Agriculture representative and AAFCO President) and Purina Pet Food regarding a speech Mr. Cook gave at a Purina marketing event, held in September 2017. Was Mr. Cook paid a fee to speak at the Purina marketing event? Did Missouri Department of Agriculture benefit financially from Mr. Cook speaking at the Purina marketing event?
Sometimes when you file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request there is a fee that is charged the requester. The fee is supposed to cover research time (should it be a difficult to locate records) and the copying cost of documents. As example, when TruthaboutPetFood.com filed a FOIA request with Missouri Department of Agriculture for the emails and phone records regarding the Mars pet food plant (formerly) located in Joplin, MO – because the documents were several years old (research time) and because many pages were provided, Missouri Department of Agriculture charged us $275.00. We received 880 pages of documents for that $275.00 fee – which considering the amount of documents provided seemed fair.
But the fairness stopped with that FOIA request.
Missouri Department of Agriculture informed me in advance the cost for the Purina FOIA and provided the following invoice…
[pdf-embedder url=”https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Invoice.pdf” title=”invoice”]
Shocked at the cost for such a simple FOIA request, I emailed Missouri Department of Agriculture asking why such a high fee was involved…
Me: “I’m concerned at the cost of this FOIA request. This is just for records on one employee regarding one event he was hired to speak at. Why all the hours to research this – and at $40 an hour? Can you explain?”
Email response from Missouri: “What you requested required a lot of research time and requesting info from outside sources, which requires staff time to do so. Each staff member that worked on this request, has a specific salary rate that must be charged for their time spent. Unfortunately, these types of requests can be quite extensive.”
My email response back: “Can you assure me that I won’t receive $300 worth of redacted pages?”
Email response from Missouri: “As far as emails and phone records, we do not house those records, they have to be requested. Then searched through to make sure they are what you are requesting. There will only be redactions if there is personal information such as banking info, date of birth, social security numbers, and so on.”
Because I felt that consumers deserved to know if AAFCO President Stan Cook was paid by Purina to speak at a marketing event, I paid Missouri’s $323.18 fee.
And what did we learn for that $323.18 FOIA fee? What did we receive from Missouri Department of Agriculture?
We received 10 and 1/2 pages of fake phone records. (You can scroll through each page of the phone records by hovering your mouse over the document, click the arrow at the bottom of the pdf to view the next page.)
[pdf-embedder url=”https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Phonelogs.pdf”]
Click Here to view the phone records provided in a separate window.
If you notice, ALL of the phone numbers called (located in third column from the right) end in “0000”. The phone calls requested were specific to conversations between Mr. Stan Cook and Purina. Instead, Missouri Department of Agriculture provided 10 and 1/2 pages of fake phone numbers and charged me $270.47 for this part of the FOIA request.
Not one phone record in the 10 1/2 pages was to the phone number of the Purina employee that contacted Mr. Cook, there was not one phone record to even the same area code (314) provided.
What about emails? What emails were provided?
A whopping 14 emails were provided. (You can scroll through each page of the email records by hovering your mouse over the document, click the arrow at the bottom of the pdf to view the next page.)
[pdf-embedder url=”https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FOIA-request.pdf” title=”FOIA request”]
Click Here to view the 14 emails provided in a separate window.
On page one, there is an email from Chris Cowell, Director, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs for Purina Pet Food to Mr. Stan Cook that states “It was good to talk to you this morning.” This email was dated “July 10, 2017” (two months before the Purina marketing event). No phone records were provided by Missouri for this phone call.
The remaining 13 emails are basically nothing. There is absolutely no mention of a fee paid to Mr. Stan Cook or Missouri Department of Agriculture for the speaking engagement.
There are several possibilities to who paid for Mr. Stan Cook to speak at the Purina marketing event…
- Tax payers of Missouri paid Mr. Cook’s travel expenses (expense of Missouri Department of Agriculture); or
- AAFCO paid Mr. Cook’s travel expenses; or
- Purina paid Mr. Cook’s travel expenses and possibly paid Mr. Cook a fee for speaking.
$323 dollars later, we still don’t know which of the above it is.
But we do know that Purina carefully scripted the presentation. From the September 6th email (page 5 of the 14 emails link above), Mr. Chris Cowell of Purina provided Mr. Stan Cook of Missouri Department of Agriculture and Dr. Dan McChesney of FDA the “outline of topics and questions that will be covered” during their segment of the marketing event.
Purina scripted every moment for Mr. Stan Cook and Dr. Dan McChesney, including providing – in advance – the questions they wanted discussed. A couple of the questions…
To all of the panelists (Missouri, FDA, and PFI): “Talk about how pet foods are among the most highly regulated products on the market.”
To FDA: “Tell us how the FDA makes sure the regulations are being met.”
To Missouri: “What is AAFCO’s and the individual state’s role in regulating the industry?”
(We can all safely assume there was no mention that FDA allows pet food to violate federal law through Compliance Policies, and no mention that Missouri Department of Agriculture ignores state feed law with pet food.)
To read the complete script that Purina sent Mr. Stan Cook (provided in the FOIA request) and FDA, Click Here.
In this consumer advocate’s opinion, Missouri Department of Agriculture was most certainly trying to deter me from discovering for pet food consumers what Mr. Cook was paid to speak at the Purina marketing event. To me, it is more than concerning that a government agency would work so hard to keep this information from pet food consumers.
What are your thoughts…
Why did Missouri Department of Agriculture charge TruthaboutPetFood.com such a large fee for basically nothing (fake phone numbers and 14 emails)? Was it to discourage me/us from making further FOIA requests? And/or was it to discourage any inquiry into Mr. Stan Cook’s activity?
For your consideration to these questions, a reminder…AAFCO (of which Mr. Stan Cook is President) kicked me out as consumer advocate advisor based on information provided in a previous FOIA request filed with Missouri. https://truthaboutpetfood.com/aafcos-attempt-to-control-truthaboutpetfood-com/, https://truthaboutpetfood.com/you-scratch-my-back-ill-scratch-yours/
Was this corruption? If so, what can we do together – to battle against the ongoing corruption in the regulation of pet food?
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
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. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2018 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Valerie Barnard
January 3, 2018 at 7:24 pm
Purina clearly has too much money and power. I would never buy their crap, and I tell all pet owners to avoid these big companies with too much clout.
T Allen
January 3, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Contact the MO State Attorney General’s Office? Your own Congressional delegation may be able to provide insight or your Attorney General’s Office. It’s really hard to get anything done with any Gov agencies without having an attorney involved! Maybe it’s time to start a social media campaign to raise funds for that purpose? I would definitely challenge them on the fee knowing that “Each staff member that worked on this request, has a specific salary rate that must be charged for their time spent.” includes everyone including the time it took every manager up to the MO Attorney General to look at it and try to cover their you know whats. We aren’t going away and from the sudden increase in ads on TV the Industry is seeing a hit to their bottom line. Thanks Susan!
Patricia Podboy
January 3, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Grrr…this just pisses me off. Perhaps the way around this is in the future is to not red flag the FOIA request by using either your name or Truth About Pet Food (since both you and the organization have been blacklisted by AAFCO and who knows whom else). I’m all for being upfront, but when dealing with lowlifes like this you might get what you want by playing a little subterfuge of your own.
Christine B Giammarco
January 3, 2018 at 7:48 pm
Wow where are the news papers? Why aren’t they asking questions ? Did the taxpayers pay ..did Purina pay as a former state employee I know this is not allowed and if the department actually received a fee for an employee with oversite that is a crime. It is shameful that the news media is sleeping on this.
Adriana
January 3, 2018 at 7:52 pm
Mind-boggling to say the least…thank you Susan for your tenacity and persistence! Serious food for thought…
Madeleine Fisher Kern
January 3, 2018 at 8:17 pm
The large fee was to terminate your asking for more, no doubt. And I would assume Mr. Stan Cook was informed of your request for this information and determined what you received for your fee. It seems Mr. Cook and anyone else who could be held accountable determined what arrived on your desk. Mr. Cooke, Missouri Department of Agriculture representative and AAFCO President, has friends obviously. The Freedom of Information Act seems to have been neutered again.
Peter
January 4, 2018 at 7:08 am
I agree. Other states are mulling amendments to procedure for FOI requests, including fees. This creates a “chilling effect” that mutes the public’s ability to secure public information to which they have basic right of access.
Anthony Hepton.
January 3, 2018 at 8:26 pm
There are so many good stories here if any new agency has the inclination, however, they all seem to put advertising dollars above the truth.
Follower
January 3, 2018 at 9:39 pm
What you don’t receive, is about as telling as what you might receive! (Wink).
d
January 3, 2018 at 10:12 pm
https://www.foia.gov/faq.html#appeal
You may file an administrative appeal if you are not satisfied with an agency’s initial response to your request. Before doing so, however, you may wish to contact the FOIA professional handling the request or the agency’s FOIA Public Liaison. The FOIA Public Liaison is there to explain the process to you, assist in reducing any delays, and help resolve any disputes. Often, a simple discussion between you and the agency will resolve any issues that may arise.
If necessary, filing an appeal is very simple. Typically, all you need to do is send a letter or e-mail to the designated appeal authority of the agency stating that you are appealing the initial decision made on your request. There is no fee or cost involved. After an independent review, the appellate authority will send you a response advising you of its decision. Once the administrative appeal process is complete, you also have the option to seek mediation services from the Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Jane Eagle
January 4, 2018 at 2:29 am
Yes: what d said. You were specific about precisely what information you were requesting, and you were NOT sent those documents. You paid for them and were sent something different. Excellent basis for an appeal.
Thank you for being such a fierce and indefatigable warrior.
Terry Hain
January 4, 2018 at 2:40 am
Since Greitens was elected, things have been “different” in Jefferson City. I don’t know if that has anything to do with this. I know concerns I addressed on an issue with the Public Service Commission went nowhere fast. And lately there is much unhappiness over some of the governor’s appointments. Having moved to rural Missouri from Kansas City, I had no idea how much agriculture was king in state government. Among my suggestions, find a legislator who is concerned about animal welfare and who isn’t beholden to the ag lobby. Also, you might want to contact Judy Thomas, projects reporter at the Kansas City Star (jthomas@kcstar.com) and see if this is an issue she will get behind. In addition, Thomas has a lot of experience pursuing FOIA and Missouri Sunshine Law requests in the state, so she might have some suggestions. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/aug/29/50-states-foia-missouri/ As to the person who suggested contacting the AG, you should know that Josh Hawley is very hard even for folks in the state GOP committees to get in touch with and that was before he decided to run for the Senate. Hawley is very strong on issues related to constitutional law and I think he has an agenda for national issues over what tends to be popular in Missouri. If he could be shown there was a violation of the FOIA, he might look into it. But with his political ambitions and the state being the way it is with ag, it might be hard for him to give you more than lip service.
Terry Hain
January 4, 2018 at 2:50 am
Missouri Sunshine Law records request procedure: https://www.ago.mo.gov/missouri-law/sunshine-law/sample-language-forms/records-request-form. And here is a document to download with much more information about the Missouri Sunshine Law: https://www.ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/publications/missourisunshinelaw.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Lee Brunovsky
January 4, 2018 at 7:13 am
Thank you so much for your effort in spotlighting this. People like you are what makes the world better
Tracey ann
January 4, 2018 at 9:36 am
Its time for a movement for our animals.. who is Mars/ purina company.. they injure us with with crappy foods helping people to become obese and now our little babies with awful cheap products causing all kinds of illness
Kristen B.
January 4, 2018 at 11:02 am
I buy Victor pet food, made in USA, and rated 4-5 stars by dog food advisor. Sad these companies just care about profits, not the animals, and many consumers don’t know. Thanks for your courage.
Jill Chambers
January 4, 2018 at 12:06 pm
Unfortunately I feel there isnt a whole lot we can do against the government that allows this to happen. Wonder if President Trump owns a dog or cat? I want to fight the government about rabies vaccine laws and how outdated they are. The only thing we can do is educate as many people as we can and boycott all commercial pet food. And break the law by not licensing your animals so you dont have to get them vaccines they dont need,
Follower
January 4, 2018 at 1:57 pm
In short, am in agreement with your comment. But here’s the reality:
Sometimes there’s just no way to fight the government. (Political specifics make no difference). If we can’t insist (demand, force) existing laws be enforced, ones that forbid the use of adulterated ingredients, what’s the solution? As Susan’s recent post demonstrates, States are beholding to their agri-business constituents. Money (and power) rules the day. Not health and safety. Even in spite of laws created for very good purpose!
The second issue is how we think about “animals” in general. Where should the line be drawn between treating “companion pets” (cats and dogs) especially well (feeding them like family) and ignoring others. Unfortunately, and impractically, PETA is one side of an extreme. Yet there is also a basic inhumanity about “livestock factory farming” of which “livestock feed” is the norm.
PF manufacturing (including AAFCO) is banking on the majority of the PF consumer’s ability to use blinders (remain in denial) and to compartmentalize their rationale. As in treating animals, like animals. But maybe their own, just a tad better. So advertising works very hard to make PF better than acceptable …just not exactly human edible quality.
Consumers accept this proxy only because they’re NOT being educated about the risks (consequences) of following this practice.
Personally, I’m for one simple message: If ingredients used to feed your dog are not human edible quality, then it’s livestock feed (including adulterated ingredients). The DIFFERENCE means that your dog, isn’t just eating garbage (unfit for retail sale) but DISEASED, cancerous, and potentially euthanized protein, which means it is not slaughtered by intention. And therefore is not USDA Inspected and Passed. Accepting material from a vendor ignoring the law, created the (documented) Evangers’ mistake which killed a dog. And countless other dogs get sick all the time from substandard feed. The bottom line is labeling products appropriately. Let consumers feed what they want, just permit consumers to make that distinction for themselves.
I understand the Rabies argument. Which is also conditional to a dog’s genes, exposure, region and lifestyle. Certain Rabies protocols are not annualized. But (in this case) if the government removes their strict enforcement (or dilutes the message) owners won’t vaccinate at all! Which puts the population (human and canine) at risk. And in fact dogs won’t see a Vet … even occasionally. However positive certified Titers should also be an acceptable alternative. Particularly when certain dogs already have an autoimmune sensitivity or healthy risk.
Jill Chambers
January 18, 2018 at 10:27 am
Titers should be accepted, and that is what I want to see changed. Change the law so that titers MUST be performed, and if negative, then they get the vaccine.
Follower
January 18, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Things to keep in mind, in terms of trying to modify the law. You can’t change the wording to “must” titer, instead of being vaccinated, because titers are too expensive ($300) for most owners, and multiple dog owners! But a titer should be an acceptable alternative. Especially for compromised dogs. The law also has to figure out the process for tracking this kind of certification, because (I believe) titer testing is currently being outsourced by Vets. (At least mine did). Everybody debating a change in the law is going to be looking at cost, first. And Vets don’t want to lose the business that mandated Rabies Vaccination brings in, so they will actively protest against it. Unless they do it themselves, and can make money doing so.
Jill Chambers
January 20, 2018 at 9:48 pm
It is possible to get titers done much cheaper than $300, check out protect the pets. Also, I wouldnt want to go to a vet who is just thinking of making money, but rather, would do what is right. Hard to find? yes, but they are out there.
iodogs
January 4, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I wrote to the Wisconsin State Attorney General asking about pet food regulations, and received a certified letter back
stating that the AAFCO regulations are available in Madison, at such and such location and may be viewed any time during office hours. Period.
Follower
January 4, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Regulations … or Pet Food Definitions. And do the regulations guarantee compliance. Would be another good question.
Donna Pearson
January 4, 2018 at 7:05 pm
Thank you Susan for your caring and actions! I am new to this issue and getting very distressed the more I read.
Debi
January 6, 2018 at 7:02 am
AG Office
Christina Weigle
January 6, 2018 at 2:12 pm
Where did you get the info that he was paid and it was scripted?
Follower
January 6, 2018 at 4:59 pm
I had to do a “find” on the page for the word scripted. But whether or not he was, doesn’t matter. The point is, Cook is strongly biased in favor of protecting agri-business. If Purina was doing everything correctly (meaning safely and transparently) then bravo for the success of a big business. However, from the article (and the one in October) including the comments (experiences) here … does it seem like Purina would NOT be interested in influencing AAFCO and the FDA? And manipulating their public image?
Bev
January 6, 2018 at 2:17 pm
This is exactly why those of us who feed a home made raw organic diet do what we do. No crap in our animals food, little to no veterinary bills for us (along with no more shots) and great health for our beloved animal family members. TY for all that you do to share the facts!
Karen
January 18, 2018 at 1:19 am
You can only influence with your pocketbook.