In May of 2016, Wysong Pet Food filed a lawsuit against six competing pet food manufacturers claiming misleading images on pet food labels sway consumer purchases. The defendant pet food companies have responded, asking a judge to dismiss the case. Here’s what they are claiming…
When the average consumer looks at a pet food label like this…
…how do they interpret that label, specifically the images on the label?
Do most consumers think the pet food includes steak – similar to what is displayed on the label?
Or do most consumers see the grilled steak image and think…’Steak, oh OK. That means this pet food is made with beef. It doesn’t contain steak, it’s simply a beef pet food.’…?
The latter is what lawyers representing Mars, Purina, Big Heart, Hills, Ainsworth, and Walmart believe consumers think. Hill’s Science Diet’s response to the court…
The pictures on the packages inform consumers about the general type of ingredients in the products (chicken, beef, salmon, vegetables, etc.). These easily recognizable graphic depictions of ingredients are a quick, simple way for consumers to know what they are buying.
(Something interesting about the above pet food label…the name of the pet food is Rachael Ray Nutrish Natural Beef and Brown Rice Recipe Dog Food Dry, the image is a grilled steak…but…the banner in the middle of the label states “Real Chicken Pieces”. Is this a “quick, simple way” to confuse consumers? Is it beef, is it chicken, is only the chicken real?)
Lawyers representing Mars Petcare and all of the other pet food manufacturers in the suit claim…
A reasonable pet food consumer would not believe that images of meat, vegetables or fruits on packages mean that the food is comprised of premium ingredients…
…the images on Defendants’ packaging convey the simple and true message that the products contain the protein (or fruits and vegetables) from the types of animals depicted. The images on Defendants’ packaging depict the ingredients actually contained in the products in a form that consumers readily identify.
Note the words “a reasonable pet food consumer”. Does that mean a consumer would be ‘unreasonable’ should they believe a pet food package displaying pictures of grilled steak or roasted chicken breast should contain just what the label portrays?
Question…
If you were to purchase this TV dinner…
…would it be ‘unreasonable’ for any consumer to expect the above TV dinner does in fact contain fried chicken?
Or would it be “reasonable” for a consumer to think of the above TV dinner: ‘Oh, OK. I’m going to have chicken tonight. I have no idea how that chicken is prepared – I shouldn’t pay any attention to the fried chicken displayed on the label.”
That is what the defense of Mars, Purina, Big Heart, Hills, Ainsworth, and Walmart are saying. The defense is saying that the only thing the consumer thinks is chicken – consumers don’t see fried chicken and think they are purchasing fried chicken.
Question…
Is is reasonable or unreasonable for a consumer to expect the chicken in their TV dinner is exactly prepared as the label displays?
Question…
Would a reasonable consumer purchase this TV dinner for their child…
…and find it perfectly acceptable that the dinner DID NOT contain chicken drumsticks? What if the above TV dinner contained some other portion of chicken – like chicken backs? Is is “reasonable” for a consumer to purchase a TV dinner with fried chicken drumsticks displayed on the label when the dinner contains no drumsticks?
The Mars response to the court (speaking for all of the defendant pet food companies) also argued…
Wysong’s main theory is that the images of meats, fruits and vegetables on Mars’s packaging cause a substantial portion of reasonable consumers to believe that the products contain “ingredients like those they would purchase and cook for their families.” Mars’s packages do not state that the products contain ingredients that a consumer “would feed his family.” None of the packages state that the food or its ingredients are human grade. A reasonable pet food consumer would not believe that images of meat, vegetables or fruits on packages mean that the food is comprised of premium ingredients “that they feed their families.”
Again the lawyers call out the “reasonable pet food consumer”. The argument made by the pet food companies trying to get this lawsuit tossed is that “reasonable consumers” do not believe that a picture of grilled steak or roasted chicken on a pet food label implies human food. Of course ‘reasonable consumers’ are swayed by those images…if they weren’t so effective pet food companies wouldn’t use them. And the pet food companies claim “none of the packages state the the food or its ingredients are human grade”. Actually – they do. They state ‘human grade’ through those images. Those are certainly not pictures of feed grade meats. The words human grade are not used, but the images speak just the same.
And let’s not forget the law specific to those images on pet food labels. 2017 AAFCO Model Regulations for Pet Food – “PF2. Label Format and Labeling – (c) A vignette, graphic, or pictorial representation on a pet food or specialty pet food label shall not misrepresent the contents of the package.”
I fully support Wysong Pet Food in this lawsuit. There is no doubt – many images on pet food labels are lying to consumers while some pet food companies are profiting handsomely from those lies. I encourage Wysong to continue their battle. All pet food consumers will benefit when these lies are stopped.
To read the response from Mars, Purina, Big Heart, Hills, Ainsworth, and Walmart – click here.
To read the response from Wysong – click here.
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 2017 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. 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
Reader
January 29, 2017 at 7:37 pm
Well, since when has a Court case been brought to trial without both sides stipulating as to a mutually acceptable and agreed upon definition of any “term” (or definition) is?
Wasn’t this a problem in the Purina / Beneful case because the defendents used witnesses in an inappropriate manner? Meaning, rather than bringing in subject matter experts, they used the “opinions” of two Veterinarians. But they were not “credentialed” in the field of expertise to which they were commenting upon.
And even though we as advocacy supporters understood the point they were trying to make, apparently their comments in a Court of Law were not indisputable.
Looks like they (both sides) of this case, might be going down the same, slippery slope. “Reasonable” particularly in the world of PF consumerism, is a very relative term. Because “we” as trained consumers have a very different understanding of PF from inexperienced (or completely trusting) consumers!!
I post this there, in the hope that those in charge of the case will take heed.
Reader
January 29, 2017 at 7:59 pm
I would make 2 other clear points as well. Some bags of PF have illustration and some only have wording.
“Rachel Ray” (the personality) in the TV Commercial for the PF, (I don’t know if she’s on the bag) represents very specific expertise in the field of human nutrition. Her image, her narration, her skill in selecting appropriate ingredients is an implied sanction (meaning a transfer of expertise) to PF. When in fact she isn’t credentialed in animal nutrition at all. She’s not a Veterinarian. And yet she is promoting this food to be an equally beneficial source of nutrition for an animal!
If that is a truth, then consider the questions below:
What then is the true definition of “real” meat? Is it fundamentally only the difference between “actual” versus “plastic?” A quality has no relevance? Is a consumer expected to believe (from visuals) that one PF has an advantage over another?
Why are consumers expected to automatically know a PF is not fit for human consumption, even though the images make it appear to be so? And (in terms of evidence) how would a Focus Group explain a consumer’s ability to make that distinction? What are the ELEMENTS driving a consumer to believe PF is unfit for human consumption?
THAT’s what the prosecution should be focusing on!
B Dawson
January 29, 2017 at 10:16 pm
I must take exception to the following: …” When in fact she isn’t credentialed in animal nutrition at all. She’s not a Veterinarian.”…. While I understand your point that her status as a celebrity chef is being used to sell pet food, you don’t have to have a degree to feed your pets properly.
Let’s not forget that those with animal nutrition credentials and veterinarians are the very ones who are formulating the crap pet food that is the subject of this lawsuit. We must stop accepting that only those with letters after their names have what it takes to formulate a pet’s diet.
Consider this: how many of us are “credentialed” in human nutrition. How many of us have a registered dietitian or medical doctor at hand to make sure our meals are nutritious? In fact, I would summit that the nutritionists and dietitians responsible for the human food featured in this article aren’t exactly providing a quality product either even if the label is an accurate depiction of the package’s contents! It is this ever growing belief that a college degree is necessary to do the most ordinary of things that is causing misleading packaging to be successful and entrenched as a marketing tactic. These companies spend vast amounts of money on focus groups to determine exactly what attracts a buyer. It is no accident that these images, words and phrases are on a package. Have you ever noticed the abundance of blue in packaging, corporate logos and ads? It is a fact that blue is not only the most popular color but also inspires trust.
In the last few years New York City has had multiple tragic deaths from people being pushed off crowded platforms and into the path of oncoming trains. The crowd stands and watches in horror, but doesn’t attempt to help at all. Psychologists have looked at this phenomenon and concluded people don’t react because they are certain that someone else is better qualified to deal with the emergency than they are. This is the state of our population. We are becoming cotton-headed ninnymuggins who are abandoning our critical thinking skills and it is being used against us.
If you are interested in how marketing works, pick up a copy of “Why We Buy” by Paco Underhill. It is written for retailers so they can better understand what triggers consumers to buy. Ever wonder why all the pet food and treats are in the BACK of Petco? It’s not an accident. You will never walk into a big box store again and see it the same way.
Keller
January 30, 2017 at 1:18 am
Thank you for your educated opinion. I will be buying “Why We Buy.” My daughter works in retail and is getting her master’s degree in business. She knows far more than I do about this sort of marketing, but she may learn more from it. She’s specializing in an area that could take her to corporate levels, and I’m always looking for ways that she might be able to help our cause. I consider it an obligation to her devoted parents, who are funding her education. Fair enough, wouldn’t you say? lol
Reader
January 30, 2017 at 4:02 am
Oh please. Make no assumption that Readers are uninformed about advertising manipulation and product placement. Not on THIS Forum. And if your argument is to devalue a credential, then why refer to a psychologist’s study on human behavior? In crisis situations both heroes (and those who aren’t) perform (or not). Possibly due to training, reflexes, experience, adrenalin, fear, or lack of confidence. Nutritionists and dietitians do not (primarily) sell. They are consultants. And in your comment, there does seem to be an embedded prejudice against purposeful higher education.
1) Animal Nutrition Specialists (ANC) should be writing accurate commercial PF formulas. Using crap ingredients cancels the benefit. But doesn’t mean “Jack Sprat” from down the street should be writing them instead.
2) The best intention of higher education is never wasted. Only the person’s time when it’s ignored, but doesn’t devalue the principle of a credential. Nor is it a disadvantage to seek one for expert testimony to win a Court Case.
3) People use doctors with specialized training. Which can be a supplemental credential to an MD. But a Plastic Surgeon doing routine knee replacements isn’t well-served. It means oversight has failed. And the professional is cheating the system. A purported ANS (or celebrity spokesperson) used to promote a deceptive product, is an advertising gimmick.
4) I didn’t start home cooking for my dog without the benefit of education. I use a Veterinarian’s recipe (Karen Becker) who is also skilled in pet nutrition. The recipe was made available through an informed website (TAPF). And Susan did not write “Dinner Pawsible” without input from other appropriate experts in nutrition.
5) To feed ourselves, we don’t need a credential. But benefit from people with appropriate knowledge. Either from sensible generational traditions (experience). Or wellness principles based on research. If the ingredients are worthless, then the benefits are cancelled. People can survive on a sole diet of Fast Food, but there will be some side effects.
For the record, have been registered to a Market Sampling Company, and for years, participated in a countless number of Focus Groups! As well as being exposed to the (so-called) art of advertising techniques. In terms of agri-business and food supply deficiencies would recommend FOOD, INC..
And while “Cotton-headed Ninnymuggins” (proper names are capitalized) or those “abandoning their critical thinking skills which is being used against them” DOES apply to politics, we here at TAPF hope that BALANCED education (instead of insults) is the way to attract additional pet owners trying to do the right thing!
B Dawson
January 30, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Reader:
Perhaps you should revisit the second paragraph where I stated: “We must stop accepting that ONLY (emphasis added) those with letters after their names…”. I don’t denigrate credentials, but the QUALITY of the credentialed individual should be ascertained.
You do not need a degree in order to provide proper nourishment for your pets or yourself. You yourself admit as much when you list “experience” as an example later in your reply. Yes I cited psychological research to prove the point that marketers are very good at getting into peoples heads to get the sale. That’s because my comments were about feeding your pet, not setting a bone, doing plastic surgery or understanding human psychology.
For the record, I have degrees of my own in biology and chemistry with focus on pre-veterinary course work, so if I question the belief in the universal high quality of degreed individuals it is from direct experience. I won’t go into all the manipulated research I’ve witnessed, but will offer these pet related comments:
At SuperZoo a number of years ago, I followed a veterinarian from booth to booth as he offered his “vet approved” stamp to vendors – for a fee, of course. He wasn’t offering to investigate the formula or determine it’s quality. He had forms with him that he would sign and hand over immediately! Now, one person’s cavalier attitude doesn’t indicate an industry wide problem but witnessing such transgressions is faith shaking both in the vet and pet food manufacturers who would accept such an offer. That approval on the bag influences the purchase, yet in reality it could mean very little.
I was reported, by a local vet, to the California Veterinary Medical Board for practicing medicine without a license because I hosted a non-aesthetic teeth cleaning company in my shop. The inquiry that followed was nothing short of a witch hunt. For a full year after that, men in suits ( suits were an anomaly in that small CA town) came into my store asking questions about getting a “diagnosis” for their pet or asking if I could “prescribe” a herbal supplement. When I finally said to one of them “you know if you’re going to work undercover you should really try to blend in more. What agency do you work for?” they never bothered me again. Look at all the harassment Susan has been going through. All from people who believe they know what’s best due to their anointed positions, most all of which have titles and letters. When you threaten their control they will come after you.
Google the authors of vet school nutrition text books and you will find close associations with Purina, Science Diet, and back in the day, Iams. I have a livestock nutrition text purchased at Ohio State University that advocates feeding news print to dairy cows because it contains more nitrogen than hay and is cheaper. That pales in comparison to USDA & AAFCO (all credentialed individuals, I’m sure) advocating that spoiled grocery products ground up in the containers are appropriate feed, as Susan has reported here. They can cite a case load of “science” to prove their point – most of which was paid for by sympathetic bank accounts. Should I accept their idea of healthy diets? It’s backed by science and advocated by credentialed leaders.
If I question the waning of critical thinking in many consumers, it comes from owning a holistic pet supply for 10 years in a state renowned for it’s forward thinking. The level of consumer confusion is astonishing and heartbreaking. Far too many weary customers said “just tell me what to buy.” If I were without principles I would have pointed to the highest margin food in the store or signed up for the generous incentive programs that some marginal foods offer store owners. Left on their own, these are the people who would reach for the label with juicy grilled steaks on the front (put there by market consultants). Instead I took the time to see what food was BEST for their beloved pet. Often that meant helping them put together a raw diet – without benefit of a nutrition degree, just a little commonsense and mentoring from my great friend Juliette de Baircli Levy, doG rest her soul. By the way, Juliette was tossed out of vet school in the early ’40s for asking too many questions, yet her clinic south of London was good enough for the Queen of England’s corgis.
It’s hard to believe that a person is left that doesn’t know about grocery store food, marketing tactics, 4D meat or rendering. The information seems to be everywhere these days. Yet this list has plenty of posts from new members whose eyes are being opened for the first time. Thank you Susan, Cathy, Michael and all y’all for being there.
Absolutely this list is populated with above average knowledge, which is why new people arrive every day looking for education. These folks are the ones who have chosen to question things. I encourage people to question authority, to ascertain the QUALITY of any credentialed advice that they receive before tacitly accepting it.
Reader
January 31, 2017 at 3:00 am
B. Dawson,
We’ve never been at odds with one another before. So I think we can agree on the following. ? The value of your degrees, and related field experience, including servicing PF consumers. And that owning a retail store (with related material) has helped you to understand the consumer’s mentality and the impact of advertising..
We know that nothing prevents a credentialed professional (in the PFI) from misusing an education. Or conversely speaking, using an education appropriately but having it undermined by the use of bad ingredients and manufacturing mistakes.
People don’t need higher education to feed their pets correctly. But an owner benefits from information on how to do so. Manufactured PF is in serious need of correct balance, proportion control, monitoring, best practices, human grade ingredients, and reliable processing.
People may or may not care about being manipulated by advertising. But either way, the knowledge won’t stop them from deliberately choosing to make unwise choices. And those kinds of consumers are difficult to change.
Pictures of human grade food don’t belong on “animal feed” products. AAFCO considers pet food to be “animal feed.” Inaccurate (or deceptive) pictures on a PF product have no other purpose than to persuade a consumer to buy it under the wrong impression.
A spokesperson, meaning the one who promotes a PF product as “superior” to another, without legitimate evidence, should be vetted for the authority to make such a claim. Or they should be prohibited from doing so.
Whether or not a PF consumer is “reasonable” wouldn’t matter if there was a disclaimer on the product saying “This food is not intended for human consumption. Consuming it may be a health hazard.”
People interested in animal science might choose animal nutrition as a specialty. But they should not rely only upon PFI funded education. Well rounded education needs to include training by Holistic Care providers, experienced authors writing about natural diets, understanding beneficial recipes and referring to other notable subject matter experts (such as the people who are cross-referenced on TAPF).
Discussions found on this Forum encourage Readers to find answers to their questions. And (should) seek to discourage consumers from relying only upon the AAFCO’s statement that a PF product “is formulated to meet the needs of the animal.”
Claims found on packaging are used for marketing purposes. And are seldom made for the benefit of the consumer or the pet. Quality ingredients go beyond the marketing gimmicks of these terms: grain-free, non-GMO, natural and organic. Meaning that a highly processed (cooked) kibble with those claims, has less value than simple, primary, whole food, human grade quality, minimally cooked or raw ingredients.
While it can be hard to believe that there is a person left who doesn’t know about grocery store food, marketing tactics, 4D meat or rendering. Your very argument, as to the oppression of unregulated advertising, is the correct response to that observation.
I will stand by my original assertion (on a different Thread) that people end up here (on TAPF) occasionally because of a referral. But mainly by doing on-line research to solve a pet’s symptomatic problem, a health crisis or (very sadly) an outright tragedy. The only way Followers on this site DO have “above average” awareness is because of the articles written. Including “insider reports.” And being exposed to that information over time. Which confirms the reality of on-going abnormal practices in the PFI. IMO, it’s an “education” that virtually qualifies as college level course work!
Motto: “Never give up on the opportunity to help the next person find … the truth.“
(I hope we have resumed agreeable terms ? !)
Keller
January 30, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Excellent comments. 2) and 5) Absolutely right. I learned what comprised a balanced diet on a daily basis from my uneducated mother, whose uneducated mother taught her the same way. My college education broadened my base and taught me that questioning so-called facts and doing one’s own research helps people distinguish truth from false “facts.” We all benefit from questioning what is presented as facts. Unfortunately, many people simply accept what is presented to them as truth as advertised. Protecting consumers from that falsehood is what drives Susan to fight for all pets and drives us to join her in this fight.
B Dawson
January 31, 2017 at 9:43 am
Reader
I do not approve of pet food being labeled “not for human consumption”, just in case you were including that in the category of what we might agree on. This is the only issue I will address as this discussion is straying from the intended topic.
“Not for human consumption” excuses a world of sins, allows all sorts of wiggle room for ingredients and will be used to dismiss all sorts of legal actions. What more could poor quality pet food companies ask? Don’t improve what you manufacture, just put a disclaimer on the label and let them eat cake.
Any pet that has to eat kibble or canned food deserves human ingredients, human-grade manufacturing and safe handling procedures.
My motto: “Follow those who SEEK the truth. Doubt those who have FOUND it.”.
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
January 30, 2017 at 12:55 am
“How would a Focus Group explain a consumer’s ability to make that distinction? What are the ELEMENTS driving a consumer to believe PF is unfit for human consumption?
THAT’s what the prosecution should be focusing on!”
Exactly! They think they can speak for all consumers! Plus the way they word the questions could be misleading & biased to get the answers they are looking for.
I bet if every single person that walked into a store to buy petfood were asked those questions about what the images & wording on the bag means, I am almost positive most would think that those pictures on the bag are indicative, and represent the actual ingredients of what was used to manufacture the food. I highly doubt they would believe rotting vegetables, moldy grains, inferior 3-D meat-by-products, and other crap, were what went into making their pet food that they buy.
These companies try to get around the issue by saying, “well of course people don’t think the ingredients are human grade”. All those two words mean to most people, is that they of course, know that people shouldn’t be eating their pets food. They don’t know that “feed grade” means that they are feeding extremely inferior & even possibly toxin laden ingredients made into pet food. Their focus groups are BS.
***AN IDEA***What if we all took part of a little social experiment? I would love to see if Susan could write up a short questionnaire asking some of these types of questions related to people’s perceptions of advertisement of pictures & wording of petfood ingredients. We all could then use on our own accord, as a little experiment, ask all the people we personally know, or are connected to us via our social media networks. We could report back our findings to Susan & she could compulate a consensus, our own “focus group”, if you will. With us all reaching out to the “average consumer” & not just all of us here on this site, (who by now are much more knowledgeable about the issues w/ petfood) Then, we could have a true broader range of the public’s REAL perceptions.
This could possibly be a valuable asset to present at the AAFCO meetings, when manufacturer’s argue what they “think” they know what the larger public’s perception is.
I
Anyone have any thoughts, or ideas, further input about this? How we can pull this off?
Peter
January 30, 2017 at 7:00 am
I agree, Reader. Moreover, Rachel Ray was selected by the manufacturer to have her celebrity and reputation attached to the product that bears her name. Those factors carry great weight. And the very clear implication, that ANY potential consumer is intended to accept, is that because it carries her endorsement, the product is better than what would be considered “ordinary” in the marketplace. It is precisely her endorsement that creates the expectation by a “reasonable” consumer that those things imaged on the bag, are in the bag.
Rose Studdard
January 29, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I consider my self a reasonable consumer and I translate the pictures of grilled steak and chicken drumsticks or breasts to be what is contained in the container of dog food. I have never thought pet food companies considered me anything but naive and gullible.
moviezombie
January 29, 2017 at 8:56 pm
good post, Susan….and Reader as well.
Patricia Cloonan
January 29, 2017 at 9:50 pm
Reasonable pet owners….what they are really saying is stupid pet owners! I actually can’t believe how asinine this argument is…that packaging should not have to be representative of what is actually inside the bag??? Really???
MrsK
January 29, 2017 at 9:52 pm
Wow, these pet food companies must think consumers are all idiots. We are not, and the days of “consumers” falling for their deception is ending. Thanks for sharing the post.
Yvonne McGehee
January 29, 2017 at 10:59 pm
I find those images very deceptive, in that I would expect the pictured ingredients to be included, and I think many other people would, and do, as well.
Anthony Hepton.
January 29, 2017 at 11:10 pm
Let’s show the ingredients as they really are. Slaughter house waste and 4D animals.
Pat P.
January 29, 2017 at 11:23 pm
Why shouldn’t a “reasonable” consumer expect to find pet “food” as pictured on the label (not pet “feed” which is often the actual case–and ridiculously deceptive)? Aren’t deceptive labels illegal? Are they saying that anyone who believes their labeling is stupid and unreasonable?
Of course, the people on this site know that the contents of many of these “pet foods” are not as advertised, (and that many are, in fact, not even close), but I can, also, see that many of the “less informed”, but still reasonable, consumers would want/expect to believe “the reality” of whats written or pictured on the product and be most attracted to those with savory contents. Again, many pet food consumers do NOT expect these companies to falsely advertise, as they do.
These unethical companies are pathetic.
A Miller
January 29, 2017 at 11:51 pm
Go Wysong! I have been feeding my cats Wysong products for almost 25 years. My cat recently passed at 22 years old. I am glad that Wysong is doing this. I just hope they don’t get stomped on.
Batzion
January 30, 2017 at 1:06 am
In 2016, the USDA revoked the food labeling standard for human-grade grass-fed beef without the general public knowing. See this article from The Cornucopia Institute: https://www.cornucopia.org/2016/01/usda-revokes-grass-fed-label-standard/?utm_source=eNews&utm_medium=email&utm_content=1.23.16&utm_campaign=GrassfedMORE
The same goes for gene-edited food not being labeled GMO: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-14/gene-edited-canola-oil-arrives-without-gmo-style-shopper-outrage
And food labeled “organic” from China is “anything but:” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-14/gene-edited-canola-oil-arrives-without-gmo-style-shopper-outrage
And let’s not forget those in Congress being bought off by these companies: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=A&recipdetail=S&sortorder=N&cycle=All
Food corruption and deception in the U.S. is nothing short of criminal, and this needs to be aggressively confronted by the new administration. Unfortunately, Trump’s choice for Secretary of HHS is Tom Price who voted in favor of the DARK ACT: https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/dark-act-fact-sheet
Fraud re both human and animal food appears to the rule today which is why this has the potential of being a slippery slope for Wysong so as not to disrupt the greedy “business as usual” practices of these companies.
Please keep us posted on this matter, Susan, and many thanks for all your hard efforts.
Keller
February 1, 2017 at 12:40 am
I have lost all hope for strong, enforced regulations concerning pretty much anything that is important or necessary now that the Trump-Bannon presidency exists. It’s hard to believe that the citizens have lost the race to be heard. Trump vowed to give back the power to the people and really tricked everyone who voted for him. I voted to oppose him, but it doesn’t matter anymore.
Still, we need to push on and push harder and louder and must not give up our mission. Thank you, Susan, for being a gifted leader. Would you like to run for state or country office in 2018?
Batzion
January 30, 2017 at 1:13 am
Apologies. Corrected link on “organic” food from China: http://www.trueactivist.com/organic-food-from-china-found-to-be-highly-contaminated/
Keller
January 30, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for the sites that you have listed. Will share with my friends,
landsharkinnc
January 30, 2017 at 6:52 am
I never see this ‘argument’ that it doesn’t remind me of a (alleged) case from YEARS ago — way pre-internet! where a family from another country purchased two cans of a name brand vegetable shortening — one a large can, the other one smaller. The large can had a photograph of a fried chicken on the label, and the smaller can, a picture of a piece of cherry pie … they were sorely disappointed with their purchases! … So NO! if is has pictures of beautiful crisp carrots, broiled chicken, peas, what ever — I do NOT want it made from wilted/bruised/rotten GARBAGE — If I wouldn’t eat it – I won’t feed it to my pets! — Like a good cooking wine — don’t cook with something you wouldn’t drink!
mathman54
January 30, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Perhaps the author knows the answer to this question: Have the defense produced any evidence regarding the interpretation of the legal “reasonable person”? That is, where is their data?
The packaging was produced by a marketing company working for the pet food company. Usually, the packaging is chosen because it can be demonstrated, through A-B testing, for example, to be more effective. To be more effective in getting the consumer to pick up the package and buy it, that is. Where are the accompanying studies which show what the subject thought? The defense should already have this data available as the marketing company(ies) contracted to design the packaging should already have this data.
Similarly, Wysong could have also conducted a study, or at least a survey, framing the same question. Given these pictures, what do you expect to find in this package? This moves the argument from the theoretical “reasonable person” to “this is what actual people think”.
Susan Thixton
January 30, 2017 at 4:13 pm
To my knowledge – which is limited – they have not produced any data like you speak of. Very good thought.
Karrie Kamke
January 30, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Thank you again Susan, for this very interesting – albeit disturbing – update. In addition, I appreciated the thought provoking comments and information provided in response. As a mother of 2 senior cats (who has been feeding them home cooked meals for over a year) the subject of manufactured pet food never ceases to infuriate me.
Reader
January 31, 2017 at 9:17 pm
It’s been suggested the discussion has strayed off topic (but not so at all). Which is about “claiming misleading images on PF labels sway consumer purchases.” And is another way of saying that Truth in Advertising is not being enforced.
The answer to the question“when the average person looks at a pet food label like this what interpretation do they make” (or are they expected to make) the responses are, that real food is good food, and no undesirable food is inside the package. That consumers who are trusting are permitted to imagine that scraps (or bits, pieces, the essence of) grilled beef along with other protein just makes a tastier product! That nobody assumes less than desirable ingredients are being used. The even though the food looks like human grade quality, it would still be unwise to eat food made for animals.
The answer to the question “what is the meaning of reasonable expectation?” is that it’s a matter of using common sense (or being practical) instead of being literal (or impractical). That even a image doesn’t guarantee that what’s pictured is only (or majority of) protein inside. That a consumer knows that a picture increases a product’s appeal, attracts attention, and gives a visual approximation of content. That it’s meat as opposed to fish or fowl.
AAFCO Regulation says PF packages with images and wording must reflect accurate content. (Which is enforced for human food products.) But PF advertising takes advantage of the loophole. Manufacturers avoid responsibility for making that violation, by saying it doesn’t matter. Because an average (normal, reasonable, sensible) consumer would make the purchase anyway!
PF Advocates say all manufacturing defects that result in “animal feed” (and not healthy, optimal, or safe food) should be eliminated. While PFI reform is complicated, slow and difficult to enforce, it doesn’t excuse the manufacturers from compliance. But problems still have to be addressed in the interim, such as, protecting and serving the best interests of consumers.
One of the problems the Wysong Lawsuit is addressing is, what the effect of using misleading human quality PF labels DOES. Which means, it does not discourage consumers from questioning the product itself! False assurances give them no reason to. Besides being falsely assured, they are being CONFUSED by a contradiction. (One) that the product is “as good as” human food. And (two) that food for pets is not food for people. The logical question is why? Either the manufacturer should explain (through transparent labeling) or they should be accountable for NOT explaining. And not explaining requires a disclaimer on the package: “Animal feed is not fit for human consumption, and doing so may be a hazard to human health.”
Once a statement like that is required, the kind of advertising Nutrish is using, that Wysong is filing against, becomes obsolete. Because it pushes the PFI into deciding whether transparency or strategy is more important. Meaning should they join the minority of manufacturers making human grade quality food. Or admit their product is only equal to livestock quality feed! And so promote it that way. Remember, not every owner believes a pet should eat human grade food, or shouldn’t be eating animal feed. But every consumer does have the right to know which products on the market are being advertised accurately, in order to make that choice!! Because Truth in Advertising isn’t optional. It’s required.
_________
I would suggest the danger of following others who seek the truth, is in the confusion that comes from an abundance of knowledge, that only serves the self-interests of a few! In the discovery of TAPF, there is little doubt among those who’ve found it!
shepsperson
March 2, 2017 at 8:36 pm
The packaging SHOULD be representative of its contents, but those with some sense and experience know that we have to look beyond the pretty wrappers and actually read the ingredients and guaranteed analysis.
Some of us get really obsessed and contact the manufacturers and ask a million questions. The first being “Is a board certified vet nutritionist formulating the diets?”
A company can put a steak in the picture and that ingredient can be the last on the list. As long as it’s actually in the food in some quantity it isn’t really false advertising. Misleading perhaps. (I think many would expect it to be a main ingredient.) But not false.
We must always read the back and/or side panels.
Vincent
May 9, 2017 at 5:52 am
Wow! A lot of great comments here. I’ve only been a dog owner for 6 years (I’m 55 years old) and it wasn’t by choice. A 7 year old 4 pound Chihuahua came into my life and was abandoned into my care. We bonded right away and she is now the most precious being in my life. Once she got to her double digits in age, her digestion became more sensitive to any changes in diet and she gets sick of her food more quickly which has made it a real challenge to find food that she likes and can tolerate.
In college, I studied marketing and advertising and switched to clinical psychology. Therefore I, like many others who have posted, am also fully aware of advertising tactics which has made me very skeptical of all pet foods and supplements. As I’ve researched, experimented, talked to vets etc. I’ve only become more skeptical and less trusting of most of the information I’ve come across. (In fact, Susan’s is the only substantiated info I’ve discovered)
From what I’ve noticed, most people believe, for the most part, what they see on pet food packages and advertisements. Plus, there have been so many talk shows featuring (supposed) pet food/nutrition/medical authorities who have actually claimed that most cat and dog food is not only, fit for human consumption, but that many premium pet foods are healthier and more nutritious than most packaged human foods.
My experiences with too many “wholesome” and “natural” dog foods have proven them to be absolute garbage; unfit for any mammal to consume. From the day I started having to make food choices for my own dog, I have not felt good about any of the dog foods I’ve tried or looked into. I already know how much successful deception there is in human food advertising so I figured it must be even worse with animal food since they can’t complain or boycott the companies.
For decades I’ve been put off by products that say “Natural” and “Organic”. Poison Oak is natural and organic and so is a maggot covered squirrel in the street. The latter is also “real meat”.
If I ever opened a package of Banquet Chicken or a Stouffer’s Dinner and found anything remotely similar to the disgusting, slimy, stinking crap that I find inside most of the packages of dog food I’ve purchased (with their lovely photographs of filet mignon with fresh, dill sprinkled carrots) I’d probably vomit before I could even shove it back in the box. Which is how my dog reacts to most of the commercial dog foods I’ve subjected her to. I totally disagree with their arguments that most people don’t expect the picture on the package to reflect the contents.
One correction to an earlier post, Rachel Ray is not an expert in human nutrition. She has no formal education or credentials in nutrition of any kind. Her only claim of expertise is in reworking recipes so they can be made in 30 minutes or less. She doesn’t even claim to be a chef.
Thanks to all of you for having these conversations and especially to you Susan for all of the work you do and for making this post possible.