A lawsuit against Purina linking the illness and/or death of 1,400 dogs to Beneful Dog Food has been dismissed. Another pet food…walks away, responsibility free.
The FDA began receiving a concerning number of consumer complaints of Beneful Dog Food in 2012, an average of three complaints of sick or dead pets per month. In 2013 the FDA had received so many complaints against Beneful the agency initiated an investigation/inspection of three Beneful pet food manufacturing plants.
- Six samples of Beneful Dog Food tested above legal limits for cyanuric acid and melamine (the very same poisonous combination responsible for the 2007 pet food recall).
- Six samples of Beneful Dog Food tested to contain ethoxyquin which was not listed on the label (it is illegal for a pet food to include an ingredient but not list it on the product label).
- Purina refused to provide FDA with copies of records.
- Purina refused to disclose the safety tests the company performs on ingredients to FDA.
- Purina refused to disclose the actual contents or weights of individual ingredients that went into lots of foods consumers had reported killed or sickened their pet.
- Purina refused to allow FDA to take photographs of manufacturing plants.
Even though the FDA found sound scientific and legal reasons for a recall (melamine and ethoxyquin), the agency ended their investigation into Beneful with a ‘talk’ with Purina; no recall, no accountability to the families of dead pets.
However, the FDA ‘talk’ with Purina didn’t stop the reports of pet death and illness linked to Beneful from continuing. One in particular – Frank Lucido, a California pet owner whose 3 dogs became ill and one died linked to Beneful – led to a class action lawsuit (filed early 2015) against the pet food which ultimately represented the families of 1,400 sick or dead pets all linked to consuming Beneful Dog Food.
This past week – November 16, 2016 – the legal action against this pet food with a long, long history of consumer complaints was dismissed by a California court. Purina wins, walks away with no accountability to thousands of families.
Why was the lawsuit dismissed?
The court’s dismissal order states two expert witnesses – veterinarians – were not qualified as experts and their testimony was not taken into consideration.
Veterinarian #1 testimony not taken into consideration…
“Dr. Questen’s opinions include the following: (1) “it is very important to a reasonable consumer to assume that Beneful is safe for dogs to eat” and (2) “it is very important to a reasonable consumer to assume all of Beneful’s ingredients have been tested to ensure that they are free from toxins that could cause their dogs to get sick or die.”
Purina’s argument against Dr. Questen: “Her common knowledge and generalized interactions with pet owners in the course of her veterinary practice is scientifically irrelevant and not a proper methodology for studying consumer purchasing decisions.”
In other words, Purina’s argument was that a veterinarian who talks with consumers everyday about pet food…isn’t qualified to know what consumers think about pet food. Kind of ironic. Purina pushes consumers to “Ask your Veterinarian” about pet food options on their website, and even offers incentives to veterinarians to pitch more Purina Pet Foods to consumers…
…but when a veterinarian’s opinion isn’t wanted, when a veterinarian’s opinion doesn’t help them to fight off a pet death and illness lawsuit…they argue veterinarians are not skilled enough to understand a consumer expects a pet food to be safe.
And as crazy as it might seem…the court agreed with the absurd argument from Purina attorneys.
“The Court agrees with Purina that Dr. Questen is not qualified as an expert to provide opinions about what a reasonable consumer would consider material when deciding whether to purchase dog food.”
Dr. Questen’s testimony was tossed out. Again…it is beyond belief this California court would come to the conclusion that a practicing veterinarian would not – is incapable of understanding – that consumers expect a pet food to be safe when they purchase it…is just beyond belief.
Veterinarian #2
Dr. Tegzes is a board certified veterinary toxicologist. His testimony included statements that a collective effect of mycotoxins, heavy metals and glycols “could adversely affect dogs’ health” and he stated “Purina does not adequately test Beneful”. And his testimony too included a statement that a reasonable consumer would assume Beneful was safe for their dog to consume and the food had been tested.
Again, Purina argued that Dr. Tegzes – a veterinarian of 20 years – was not qualified to make the statement that consumers expect a pet food to be safe when they purchase it. The court agreed with Purina, a 20 year veterinarian wasn’t qualified to make the assumption that consumers expect a pet food to be safe.
With regards to his statement ‘Purina did not adequately test Beneful’, Purina argued that Dr. Tegzes – a board certified veterinary toxicologist – “is not qualified” to have an opinion “on the adequacy of its testing procedures and further asserts that his opinions regarding adequacy are not reliable.”
Again, the court agreed with Purina; “the Court grants Purina’s motion to exclude Dr. Tegzes from providing testimony related to testing procedures.”
To be very clear the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology states “Board certified veterinary toxicologists are a vital link in human and animal health. Veterinary toxicology ranges from biotoxins (natural chemicals produced by plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, and phytoplankton) to the toxic effects of pharmaceuticals, feed additives, radiation, and environmental agents on animals and humans.” Veterinary toxicologists are neck deep into testing of pet food and ingredients, and understand more than most how to evaluate testing and testing methods. It is beyond belief that Purina would argue he is “not qualified” to have an opinion on the adequacy of Purina’s testing procedures. And beyond belief that the court agreed with Purina.
And the court ruled that because Dr. Tegzes relied on existing scientific research instead of he himself conducting tests to the synergistic effect of multiple mycotoxins, heavy metals and propylene glycol on dogs (you know…intentionally killing dogs in a study to prove an already scientifically proven – and common sense – risk) the court ruled…”Dr. Tegzes shall not be permitted to testify”.
And aside from the testimony of two veterinarians being tossed, the court dismissed the case including the claim that Beneful used “Industrial Grade Glycols” (propylene glycol) – which NEVER was denied by Purina Beneful. By the way – an industrial grade propylene glycol is forbidden by FDA for use in any food – human or pet food. Pet food is required – by law – to source ONLY food grade propylene glycol (not industrial grade).
Review…
Extensive amounts of complaints of sick or dying pets linked to Purina’s Beneful Dog Food have been received by FDA for at least the past 4 years.
In 2013 when FDA investigated Purina Beneful, the pet food company…
- Refused to allow FDA to take pictures, refused to provide FDA with copies of documents, refused to disclose pet food ingredient safety testing measures, refused to disclose exact ingredients used in the batches of pet foods linked to pet illness and death.
A 2015 lawsuit against Purina Beneful refused to allow the testimony of two veterinarians; one regarding a statement that consumers expect a pet food to be safe when they buy it and the other because he relied on scientific literature instead of performing testing that would result in intentional death of more dogs.
Purina never refuted the claim of using an industrial grade ingredient which is illegal.
But, the court dismissed the case issuing the follow ruling…
“The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position that a reasonable jury could find Beneful unsafe based on the mere fact that 1,400 dogs ate Beneful and got sick or died thereafter. This is insufficient evidence of causation. Indeed, there is no evidence such as an evaluation by a veterinarian that a dog actually did get sick or die because it ate Beneful.”
“Plaintiffs’ case for Beneful being unsafe, therefore, ultimately turns on Dr. Tegzes’s opinions. But as discussed above, the Court finds Dr. Tegzes’s safety-related opinions unreliable and therefore Plaintiffs’ case has no evidentiary support.”
“The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment in Purina’s favor in accordance with this opinion and close the file in this case.”
“Judge Edward M. Chen, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.”
This is beyond belief.
1,400 sick or dead pets in this case, thousands more complaints of sick or dead pets reported to FDA over 4 years and Purina walks.
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 4,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2016 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
The Other List
The List of pet foods I would not give my own pets. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Liz
November 21, 2016 at 4:36 pm
Sickening and heartbreaking. Thank you for the update, Susan.
Paula
November 21, 2016 at 4:52 pm
“The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position that a reasonable jury could find Beneful unsafe based on the mere fact that 1,400 dogs ate Beneful and got sick or died thereafter”. Mere fact ??????? They ignored the vet expert opinions. Was the judge paid off? It gets more and more scary every day. Who has a vested interest – the vets who testified or the huge pet food manufacturer?
It’s like saying X was seen pointing a gun at a victim and the victim was hit with a bullet proven to come from that gun and died – but the coroner’s opinion that the bullet caused the death cannot be considered.
Peter
November 21, 2016 at 5:25 pm
The reality is that veterinarians diagnose illness based on “clinical symptoms” that are “observable,” that is: that they can see, witness, or identify pursuant to examination or tests. The terms “science” and “facts” carry specific legal meaning, which may differ from the ordinary common-sense perspective.
The (presented) facts are that 1,400 dogs ate Beneful and got sick or died thereafter. But that in itself does not qualify as “evidence of causation.” And on that basis, (science and facts) it is true that “Indeed, there is no evidence such as an evaluation by a veterinarian that a dog actually did get sick or die because it ate Beneful,” because there was not enough specific “legal” “proof” that connected the food to the sick or dead dogs.
Corinna
November 21, 2016 at 7:28 pm
Well, that is totally messed up. It makes me so angry how these big corporations get away with everything just because they have money. Not to mention they hurt whomever they wish and don’t even care that they are doing it. It is so wrong that they are getting away with “murder” to our precious pets. They are still selling that dangerous Beneful to unsuspecting pet owners. I try to tell as many pet owners as I can that it’s a dangerous dog food.
Pat
November 21, 2016 at 10:24 pm
not much else to say that you and the commentators have voiced. Is there a way we can send our outrage to the judge? who probably in all likelihood got “charitable donations from Purina”…the corruption and greed is staggering.
Pet Owner
November 22, 2016 at 1:34 am
After following the TAPF for nearly 10 years, I used to think the website was about sorting out horrible PF from good PF.
And so would on keep reading the stories about which manufacturers were doing what. Including the latest scandals and so forth.
But here’s the thing.
Purina happened to be under the microscope. It’s done bad things. They’ve been listed above. But the FDA has no power whatsoever over these companies. Because they don’t care. It’s not THEIR family or THEIR pet who’s affected.
I’ve come to the conclusion there are only 2 kinds of “pet food.” One is manufactured outside my home. And the other is made from whole ingredients inside my home. That’s really the point about the “Truth About Pet Food.” It has less to do with specific risky ingredients, than the entire operating mandate of an Industry! Purina is a symptom of what’s going on, and anything that manufacturers can get away with. People might think the food they use is the best possible brand just because they don’t “hear” anything bad. But what kind of assurance is it?
Whether or not this lawsuit went to trial, or Purina agreed to a settlement, or escaped a judgement … doesn’t make any difference. Except for the emotional toll taken on the victims. If Purina had to pay money either for a penalty or for compensation it would’ve been pennies in their bucket.
The only thing these companies fear is SUSTAINED bad publicity. Yes it would’ve been a good headline to read: “Purina found guilty of Beneful Killing 1400 Dogs.” But that too would’ve passed. Just as the 2007 Recall passed from the minds of consumers. They don’t really care, sadly. I watch bags and bags of the most horrific kinds of PF going out the doors of discount and warehouse stores. And if you were to speak to any of those buyers they would look at you as if you’d lost your mind for ever questioning “food that’s made for pets!”
What’s wrong with this picture.
Teresa Reid
November 22, 2016 at 1:56 am
That is just shocking, but I expected it from Purina. They must pay off every judge and all other appointed lawmakers who turn their heads while our pets are suffering and dying. Bet NONE of their pets eat Beneful. Very very scarey what big businesses are allowed to do. So, all of us must spread the news about this harmful food as much as possible and do all we can to alert unsuspecting people that this food may kill their beloved pet. Susan, do you think this outcome will effect the trial that is set to start in January against a pet food company?
Eve
November 22, 2016 at 7:13 am
I HAVE AN IDEA: LETS KICK THE TOXIC COMMERCIAL PET FOOD OUT OF OUR SUPERMARKETS! WE NEED AN ONLINE PETITION (care2petitions or forcechange) and stipulate on the petition that the Supermarkets are responsible for SELLING these PET FOODS which KILL our Pets. This way CONSUMERS PET OWNERS have the POWER to REFUSE these product period. Then they will be forced to sell online or some vet clinics buy by then hopefully vets wont stock them. It’s the pet owners now , it’s up to them to just don’t buy it EVER. I live in Australia and it is shocking to see at an ALDI Store ALL the pet foods are labelled stating : Made in accordance with USA standards OMG!!!! Even some Cat foods in Coles and Woollies do NOT list ANY INGREDIENTS huh? I thought THAT was illegal????
Jeni John
November 22, 2016 at 11:07 am
What did the autopsy / necropsy results show – did they highlight an unreasonable amount of any ingredient in the animals’tissue?
Sue
November 22, 2016 at 11:08 am
$ talks and Purina has a ton of it, but honestly that judge should have his head examined. Imagine what he would have done if they had brought the dead bodies into the court room as evidence?!
It’s like big Pharma and the cures for cancer. It really makes me sick to think that money is more important than life itself and apparently always will be!
The loop holes that these big companies manage to skate through is disgusting and really I wonder truly how they can sleep at night?!?!!
Susanne
November 22, 2016 at 2:50 pm
And with the new, anti-regulation regime coming into power – this will only get worse 🙁
Pat P.
December 2, 2016 at 10:25 am
I am afraid that you are right!
Reader
November 23, 2016 at 1:38 am
I understand the point of the article, and my condolences to the conscientious Owner just trying to do the right thing for other consumers. Obviously another example of a failure in the Justice System.
But I also wonder about the attorneys representing the case! The arguments were confusing, and the use of them didn’t seem relevant to the spirit of the lawsuit. Therefore the denial of the arguments didn’t speak to the overall failure of Purina! Meaning that in the end, a defective product caused the death of many pets. And that Purina should’ve had steps in place to prevent such a tragedy.
1. Why use Veterinarians to say consumers expect a safe product, when nobody intentionally buys a defective one? Any conversation between a Vet and Client to that fact doesn’t matter. Unless a Vet knowingly recommended a defective product, then the Vet would be liable.
2. Since Purina wouldn’t incriminate itself (by cooperatin) there was no evidence of Purina intentionally doing wrong, or failing to prove they corrected prior violations. It could be argued that the defective PF was accidental and incidental, unknown that it was being sold to consumers. So the attorneys should’ve demonstrated Purina’s negligence because of a failure in quality control, which permitted a defective product to leave the Plant!
3. Peter is right, evidence must be legally factual, objective and not casual opinion. Expert Witnesses must be credentialed in their field of expertise for their comments to be pertinent in a case. Why didn’t the attorneys demonstrate (by testing the PF) that it contained illegal toxins (cyanuric acid, melamine and ethoxquin)? And that the accumulation of these toxins could lead to the sickness and death of a pet?
4. Why would attorneys present Vets’ opinions having to do with consumer behavior, instead of using their forensic skills to show how a defective product could kill a pet?
5. Did the attorneys collect the analyses of most of the Vets involved in the deaths of the other 1,400 pets? Probably not, since it was a Class Action Lawsuit. But wouldn’t it be productive to present a consensus of independent analyses across the board?
6. Shouldn’t the attorneys have argued that Purina was in violation of selling a product with undeclared ingredients, and that doing so, is what put their Client at risk, resulting in sick pets?
I don’t know, maybe we’ve all been watching too many Crime Drama Shows on TV …
JaneeS
November 23, 2016 at 1:25 pm
I agree with you. I think the attorneys did a poor job. I also think you should have been on the legal team 🙂 I wonder how much weight was given to the consumers saying that they expect a safe product, not just having the court rely on veterinarian testimony. Doesn’t the direct testimony of consumers support the opinions of the vets? The attorneys needed to meet the burden of proof by specifically and factually addressing Purina’s negligence by making the proper legal arguments, collecting scientific data, questioning the proper qualified experts, and proving that Purina was purposely negligent. The ruling is sad and horrible. It really demonstrates that Purina has no interest in the health of our pets and even consents to harming them just so that profits keep flowing in.
Tascha
November 23, 2016 at 11:29 am
I am in tears over this. The only thing we can do, as consumers, to stop the big businesses from profiting from killing our pets, is to stop buying their products! A very sad time, especially in progressive California. Shame on them!
JaneeS
November 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Susan or anyone, do you know anything about the new crap food Beneful Natural (not sure of the exact name)? What a load of bull! I’m not surprised that Purina marketers came up with this idea. Probably more people will feed their pets this junk thinking how great it is since Purina says it is natural. We all know the term NATURAL means nothing.
Then there is the commercial with the supposed Purina employee saying how she’s part of the team making the food (feed) and is proud to feed her dog Purina products, since she knows the quality ingredients they use. I want to scream whenever I see that ad.
Jane Anderson
November 24, 2016 at 10:59 am
They can say “1400” pets died from Beneful. No doubt the total is many more. Just like the 2007 pet poisonings, the news continued to say “at least 6 pets died”. Wonder what would happen if polite innocent questions about the ingredients in Beneful were to be continually posted on Purina’s page? They can’t block all of us!
Anita Fitzpatrick
December 3, 2016 at 5:32 am
It’s really hard to tell how many pets were actually affected. My Aussie was diagnosed with colon cancer…we did a colon resection in hopes to save her. The following spring she started bleeding again, she died before she was 3 years old in 2008. We fed her Beneful. It’s heart breaking! At this time the best we can do is keep spreading the word to everyone, on every platform…to READ the labels.
Caroline Snyder
November 25, 2016 at 7:24 pm
WE will keep fighting NESTLE/PURINA.
WE will boycott EVERY product made and sold by NESTLE, the corporate head..
WE will continue to spread awareness of GARBAGE like PURINA that passes for pet food.
WE will continue to EDUCATE everyone regarding a species appropriate diet.. and yes, that means GETTING EDUCATED ON INGREDIENTS and stopping ANYone in the pet food aisle that makes moves to buy this so-called “food”.
PLEASE JOIN US – Fighting Purina’s Disinformation Since February 2013!
Is BENEFUL by Purina KILLING or SICKENING Dogs? Post YOUR Story!
FACEBOOOK LINK HIGHLIGHTED
Jane Anderson
November 26, 2016 at 3:02 pm
I didn’t see any highlighted link? Maybe people can start posting polite want to know ingredients questions on Purina’s page, then including the link.
Pet Owner
November 27, 2016 at 12:26 am
“Caroline Snyder’s” name is a hyperlink to FACEBOOK.
I don’t have an account so can’t check it out for you, sorry.
Terri Janson
December 2, 2016 at 2:07 pm
I am a member of Caroline Snyders group and it’s a GREAT group to belong to. I have learned a LOT from this group!!! They helped me get a newly adopted senior poodle healthy! 🙂
Brian
December 4, 2016 at 10:03 pm
People fed their ostensibly beloved pets a Purina product and were surprised that the product was of low quality and contained suspect, unlisted ingredients. Until citizens successfully insist that there is unbiased testing and accountability in this industry, they’ll be on their own to determine what foods are worthy to feed their pets. Nestle/Purina have a long, decades-old record of endangering innocent people, animals, and whole ecosystems with their blatant disregard of moral standards. You love your pet . . . don’t ever entrust its health to such a criminal organization.
Carol Stuart
April 12, 2018 at 1:01 pm
So we hold a trial in the court of public opinion. Educate every owner. Refuse to accept Purina’s donations to shelters and the “free samples” their representatives give out at pet stores and dog shows.
Don Norton
October 17, 2018 at 2:46 am
My 3 dogs were vomiting off and on back in 2015 after we had been feeding them beneful dog food. We stopped feeding them it an boycotted all Purina/Nestle products, all of them dog and people food alike.
We have no clue of the long term affects they may have coming, wonder if all the people who lost pets to cancer maybe if they had there been reliable testing done and if they are linked, but no one ever did so based on these “safe levels”…
Some facts however, FDA not getting information needed, also finding levels of forbidden chemicals used and not listed. Sure they cannot take action short of publicizing the broken laws, how this was not used in this case is beyond me.