When pet food regulations are not abided by (manufacturers) or enforced (regulators), lawyers step in. New lawsuits – against Purina’s Merrick Pet Food, Wysong Pet Food, and Big Heart Brands (Milo’s Kitchen) for ‘Made in the USA’ claim on pet food labels – could have been prevented if manufacturers had followed regulations and regulatory authorities would enforce regulations.
Purina’s newly purchased Merrick Pet Food have found themselves involved in a class action lawsuit “over claims they falsely labeled certain products as being made in the U.S.” Wysong is also being sued for the same reason – as well as Big Heart Brands Milo’s Kitchen. From a brief statement on the suit: “The suit states the defendants falsely labeled certain dog and cat food and treat products as made in the U.S., when these products allegedly include vitamin, mineral and amino acid packs that contain ingredients sourced outside the U.S.” In non-legal language, the lawsuit is based on Merrick Pet Food, Wysong Pet Food, and Big Heart Brands claiming ‘Made in the USA’ on pet food labels but accused of not meeting the legal requirement of the claim.
The Federal Trade Commission tells all manufacturers (pet products or human products) that “a product advertised as Made in USA be ‘all or virtually all’ made in the U.S.” Pet food regulations explain this even further to pet food manufacturers. AAFCO tells pet food manufacturers: “The rule states that: ‘all or virtually all means’ that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of US origin. That is, the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. So just putting together ingredients inside the US is not enough. Additionally, just getting ingredients from a broker within the US is not enough. If ingredients are imported, then it is very difficult to justify the use of the phrase ‘Made in the USA.'”
After the 2007 pet food recall, with consumers concerned over ingredients sourced from China, manufacturers began to include the ‘Made in the USA’ statement on their labels to ease consumer concern (even if their pet foods did not meet the legal requirements of the claim). The use of the ‘Made in the USA’ claim has grown steadily each year since 2007 – grown each year because no regulatory authority (FDA and each State Department of Agriculture) has been enforcing the law.
In May of 2014, TruthaboutPetFood.com posted pictures of multiple pet food labels making the ‘Made in the USA’ claim – almost all pet foods openly stated they source some ingredients outside the US. Products from Blue Buffalo, Biljac, Castor & Pollux, Dogswell, Innova, Rachael Ray Nutrish, Nutro, Science Diet and Wellness all included the ‘Made in the USA’ statement but admitted to sourcing some ingredients outside the US. Since this post in 2014, more and more pet foods have included the ‘Made in the USA’ claim on labels. Because most pet foods source ingredients all over the world, we can safely assume most of these ‘Made in the USA’ claims on pet food labels are in violation of the Made in the USA claim, and consumers are being misled.
Why are pet foods making false ‘Made in the USA’ claims? Reason #1: Because no one is enforcing existing regulations. It is similar to drivers speeding on the highway; when no police are around with radar guns, drivers often exceed the speed limit. But this ‘speeding’ misleads consumers, sways purchases (consumers wanting a true Made in the USA pet food). Regulatory authorities have told TruthaboutPetFood.com that their main focus is on safety issues. With limited budgets and limited staff, they have stated they do not have the time to enforce some label issues such as ‘Made in the USA’ claims and misleading images of grilled meat on pet food labels. It is true that government does not adequately support (financially) pet food regulators, but to consumers there is no excuse good enough.
Reason #2: Some pet foods have simply chosen to ignore the ‘Made in the USA’ regulations. It is the responsibility of each pet food manufacturer to know, understand and abide by all regulations that govern pet food. Those that chose to include the ‘Made in the USA’ claim on their label while sourcing ingredients outside the US, have chosen to ignore regulations. There is no excuse.
It would not surprise me if we see more lawsuits popping up for misleading claims on pet food labels. It’s time somebody does something about it (even if its lawyers and not the tax dollar supported agencies that are supposed to be enforcing law). For any consumer that has been misled by a ‘Made in the USA’ claim on a pet food label, here is the link to one of the law firms involved: http://www.rlslawyers.com/ or contact your personal attorney.
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 2016 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
Jane Eagle
January 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm
This is so shameful. Why do we pay for regulatory agencies that don’t do what we pay for?
But here’s my question: how can consumers tell if parts of a product are sourced outside the USA?
And as a side note, the quote from Shakespeare is oft used: ” First thing, we get rid of all the lawyers” which most do not realize is spoken by criminals. Lawyers may sometimes be a pain in the butt, but it is hard to have a just society without them. SO: goD bless the lawyers.
Susan Thixton
January 25, 2016 at 12:47 pm
We have to ask manufacturers country of origin of all ingredients – and trust they are being honest. Regulatory authorities are the only ones that can request evidence to country of origin (such as ingredient invoices). We also have the Pledge to Quality and Origin – companies giving us their Pledge (their promise) to country of origin.
Peter
January 25, 2016 at 12:38 pm
These legal actions are good for consumers, as they often represent the only means for information to enter the public consciousness.
The situation you describe reflects a failure of government. Using the FDA and modern pet food manufacture as an example, it is known as “regulatory capture”: wherein a “state” regulatory agency was created to act in the public interest, but instead substantially advances commercial or special interests that dominate the industries it was charged with regulating. Regulatory capture ultimately encourages a business model wherein large firms impart negative economic and moral social costs on consumers (the third party in the relationship). For pet foods these negative externalities are the environmental consequences of production, false advertising, economic harm, and health impacts on our companion animals.
JM
January 25, 2016 at 3:03 pm
That’s just great! If I want to make a quick run to the store to pick up a treat for training or whatever I can no longer rely on the “made in USA” claim. Now I have to put in as much time researching the manufacturer and the product as I did for the foods I feed my dog regularly. Just great!
Rebecca Pennington
January 25, 2016 at 4:26 pm
As a trial lawyer of many years, I can tell you that the problem is that the regulation says “virtually all” the ingredients must be fro the U.S. Who defines “virtually all?” And if the only place that makes the vitamins – which are an essential ingredient but only a tiny amount of the ingredients – doesn’t t that make the food “virtually all” made in u.s.?
Susan Thixton
January 25, 2016 at 5:17 pm
I agree that ‘virtually all’ is not clearly defined through that brief statement from FTC, but AAFCO does define it to pet food/animal feed manufacturers. “the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content.” If an ingredient is listed on the pet food label (and required to meet nutrient profiles) – it is not negligible – at least to me. And China or outside the US is not the only place to make/sell vitamins – they might be the only source for cheap, bulk feed grade supplements – but they are not the only source for vitamins/supplements in general. I’m hopeful the lawsuit will help keep them honest.
I love my dog
January 25, 2016 at 6:19 pm
QUESTION: I thought I read some where along the line that manufacturers weren’t responsible for disclosing the ingredient information of pre-mixes or ingredients coming from a 3rd party supplier? For example, remember when fish was being preserved with Ethoxyquin by the 3rd party but the manufacturer wasn’t required to disclose that fact? Therefore are these manufacturers now trying to be evasive by using vitamin and mineral premixes that have some or all content coming from overseas, using the above logic having to do with external suppliers? Maybe that’s why so many companies failed to submit the Pledge?
Susan Thixton
January 26, 2016 at 8:46 am
If a supplier of ingredients adds something to a particular food/feed ingredient (and it would depend with some ingredients) such as fish preserved with ethoxyquin – the pet food manufacturer is only required to list ‘fish’ on the label. If the pet food manufacturer adds ethoxyquin to the fish, to the pet food, then the pet food manufacturer is required to list ‘fish preserved with ethoxyquin’ on the label. All vitamin and minerals added to the pet food should be (are required to be) listed on the label – in order of heaviest to lightest. It would not matter if the vitamins and minerals were added in a premix. They still have to list them. Me and my bad attitude thinks the reason so many have not provided their Pledge is because they do not want to disclose some ingredients are sourced from China.
Jude from Maine
January 26, 2016 at 1:11 pm
You said, “If a supplier of ingredients adds something to a particular food/feed ingredient (and it would depend with some ingredients) such as fish preserved with ethoxyquin – the pet food manufacturer is only required to list ‘fish’ on the label.”
How can that be so? If I don’t want ethoxyquin in my dogs’ food, such a hidden chemical in the food and not stated on the label cannot protect me, the customer, and my dogs, the consumers. How can that be allowed? It sounds like a real twisting of the intent of the law to me.
“If the pet food manufacturer adds ethoxyquin to the fish, to the pet food, then the pet food manufacturer is required to list ‘fish preserved with ethoxyquin’ on the label.”
Now, that is what I would expect to see on both parts of the product.
Susan Thixton
January 26, 2016 at 1:28 pm
Unfortunately, with most ingredients used in pet food – if the ingredient supplier adds something to it prior to arriving at the pet food plant, the pet food manufacturer is not required to state that on the label. It is a bad situation, but those are the regulations currently. Some ingredients have exceptions such as fat ingredients – they are required to list the preservative used even if the supplier added it (and not the manufacturer). I agree with you – it is a twisting of the intent of the law.
Pacific Sun
January 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm
I was introduced to PF “advocacy” 9 yrs. ago because of this very same issue! My dog ate exclusively a fish based formula from a very well regarded company. I read an article on TAPF about the issue. At the time I think I commented something like … “Well this can’t be. No company would use a carcinogenic chemical. It would have to be on the label anyway! There’s no mention of it on mine. And I really, REALLY trust this Company!: …(Oh silly me.)
We kept exchanging comments. I called the PF company. Spoke with the CEO and their advisor. And they claimed they had no choice but to accept fish preserved with Ethoxyquin. I called a supplier and asked if this would be true. I live in the Bay Area near a lot of local commercial fishing. So I also asked a specialist who was informed about alternative preservation methods. Kept on exchanging notes with Susan because it seemed totally preposterous to me, that any company would intentionally include a potentially carcinogenic chemical, especially if they didn’t have to!
That lesson turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. Curiously, word must’ve gotten around. Because the company soon after claimed to be discontinuing Ethoxyquin preserved fish. Now I look for bags say no Ethoxyquin. Otherwise I’d urge folks to find out in writing.
All of this came about EVEN before social media; SO never discount the power of consumer outrage AND demand!