http://www.mflegal.com/petfoodlawsuit

NOTE: PLEASE DO CONSIDER DOWNLOADING THEIR POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON THE PET FOOD INDUSTRY, WHILE ON THE SITE. IT IS EXCELLENT~

Maltzman Foreman
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
TEL (305) 358-6555
FAX (305) 374-9077
info@mflegal.com


Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Pet Food Companies and Retailers For Misleading Consumers Regarding the Contents of Pet Food

“Premium” Pet Food Marketed and Sold as “Complete and Balanced” Has Historically Contained Such Items as Euthanized Dogs and Cats, Restaurant Grease, Hair, Hooves, and Diseased Animals, and Other Inedible Garbage.
• Download Third Amended Class Action Complaint
• Download Exhibits to Amended Class Action Complaint
o Exhibits 1-29 to 3rd Amended Complaint
o Exhibits 30-35 to 3rd Amended Complaint
• Purina advertising deemed deceptive
• Play TV Report with Association of Feed Control Officials admitting pet food may contain dead household pets
• Powerpoint Presentation re Pet Food

If you are a pet owner and wish to be considered for participation in this lawsuit, CLICK HERE




______________________________________________________________________________________________
Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA Document 333 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2008

Defendants/Class Representatives.

MARS INC., MARS PETCARE US, INC., PROCTER
AND GAMBLE CO., THE IAMS CO., COLGATE
PALMOLIVE COMPANY, HILL’S PET NUTRITION,
DEL MONTE FOODS, CO., NESTLÉ USA INC., NESTLÉ
PURINA PETCARE CO., NUTRO PRODUCTS INC.,
NATURA PET PRODUCTS, INC., MENU FOODS, INC.,
MENU FOODS INCOME FUND, PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS,
INC., NEW ALBERTSON’S INC., ALBERTSON’S LLC,
THE KROGER CO. OF OHIO, PETCO ANIMAL
SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PET SUPERMARKET,
INC., PET SUPPLIES PLUS/USA INC., PETSMART INC.,
TARGET CORP. AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

______________________________________________/


67. Based upon the Defendant Manufacturers’, Retailers’ and Pet Specialty Retailers’ extensive and expensive marketing, the Plaintiffs, like the Class, believe that when they purchase the Defendant Manufacturers’ or any of the Retailers’/Petsmart’s private label brands from the Defendant Retailers and Pet Specialty Stores, they are buying wholesome and/or “premium” pet food with all of the quality and other claimed “benefits” represented in the Defendants’ marketing. Moreover, based upon regular, systematic and extensive claims in multiple media that the Defendant Manufacturers are “world-class” experts in pet food who advise veterinarians concerning pet nutrition, they fail to disclose that the programs to inform veterinarians about pet nutrition are part of an ongoing marketing scheme to increase sales and a clear conflict of interest between the verterinarians who are profiting from these sales to the consumer. The Defendant <SNIP>


68. The approximate $58,000,000,000 spent by consumers on pet food over the last four years has been without the knowledge that the “wholesome,” “quality,” “premium” or “gourmet” food that they are feeding their companion animals was made wholly or partially of inedible garbage unfit for human consumption, including, but not limited to, restaurant grease, roadkill, hair, blood, pus, esophagi, chicken heads, feet and intestines, cow brains, excrement, fetal tissue, moldy grains, hulls, styrofoam packaging from discarded supermarket meat, euthanized animals, including cats and dogs, and/or diseased, dying, disabled and dead animals.


69. The Defendant Manufacturers, Retailers and Pet Specialty Retailers’ marketing has mislead, deceived and/or failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs on an ongoing and continuous
basis throughout the Class Period (and prior to the class period) material information regarding the pet food products that they have purchased. Some specific examples include, but are not limited to:


CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMPANIES ABOUT THEIR FOODS, WHICH ARE BEING BROUGHT IN THE CLASS ACTION:

#The Defendants’ pet food containers deceptively include pictures and/or drawings of human-grade ingredients, but the pet food does not have human-quality food ingredients as depicted on the containers;

# The Defendants’ marketing deceptively makes the Plaintiffs believe that they are purchasing wholesome pet food when the Defendants use a food pyramid similar to that used by nutritionists for human-grade food and human nutrition, particularly where the above-described pictures and/or drawings of human-grade ingredients are used;

# The Defendants’ cat and dog food is deceptively marketed as having health, medical, hygienic and other benefits which are not adequately supported by competent and reliable scientific data;

# The Defendants include ingredients in pet food without first determining whether those ingredients will have a deleterious effect on a cat or dog despite the numerous claims of extensive research that leads the Plaintiffs to believe that pet food contents are safe for their cats or dogs and/or adequately supported by competent and reliable scientific data prior to sale;

# The Defendants’ marketing makes numerous deceptive and/or false claims relating to quality, content, health, medical, hygienic, hairball, dietetic, breed and/or age specific benefits which are inaccurate and/or are not based upon competent and reliable scientific data supporting proving same;

# The Defendants deceptively and/or falsely market their pet food as safe and wholesome yet the number and/or extent of recalled pet food products demonstrates the lack of sufficient quality control and traceability analyses which makes the pet food unsafe;

# The Defendant deceptively and/or falsely market themselves as food experts and claim to produce the safest and highest quality of pet food yet their pet food contains substances either known and/or unknown to the Defendants and/or substances that are toxic and/or unhealthy for cats and/or dogs;

# The Defendant Manufacturers market their brands of pet food as “premium” and/or “super-premium,” but they contain ingredients that are unhealthy for consumption by cats and dogs and either fail to provide the promised benefit or cause other health problems. For example, dry food diets packed with cereal carbohydrates purport to treat urinary and kidney problems may assist with deterring the formation of some crystals, but actually promote the formation of other crystals or stones in cats;

# The Defendants deceptively market “light” or diet cat and dog food as providing a health benefit, when in fact it still largely consists of carbohydrates and other fillers that cause obesity, allergies and other known health problems and may be higher in carbohydrates than is advertised;

# The Defendants deceptive marketing leads the Plaintiffs and consumers to believe that the ingredients used in their brands of pet food are “human quality,” but they, or their co-packers, use material other than human-grade “real meat, chicken, lamb,” etc., as a nitrogen source to boost “protein” content unbeknownst to the consumer;

# The Defendants omit to advise the Plaintiffs about the true quality and content of the pet food, including rendered product that may contain, including but not limited to, mad cow disease;

#The Defendants make a number of claims concerning the benefits, content and quality of their pet food without competent and reliable scientific documentation, including but not limited to, the bioavailability of their pet food products;

# The Defendants omit to advise the Plaintiffs about the toxins and other substances in the pet food for which there are no known studies to substantiate their use in pet food and/or the long term effect on cats and dogs;

# The Defendants deceptively market product comparisons where one Defendant compares its product to another without disclosing the shortcomings of its own product;

# The Defendant Manufacturers, Retailers and Pet Specialty Retailers’ marketing actively encourages the Plaintiffs and consumers to purchase only commercial pet food despite the known benefit of diets with higher levels of real protein and without cheap carbohydrate cereal fillers;

# The Defendants market their pet food as an entrée or dinner, leading the Plaintiffs to believe that it is suitable to sustain a cat or dog when, in fact, the diet is insufficient and the Plaintiffs and consumers are only told that the pet food is a “snack” when the Plaintiffs specifically request that information from the Defendant and/or when the Plaintiffs read fine print on website;

# The Defendant Manufacturers’, Retailers’ and Pet Specialty Retailers’ marketing deceptively encourages the Plaintiffs and consumers to buy “premium” pet food by representing that the expenditure of additional monies for “premium” pet foods provides nutritional, health, medicinal, hygienic and other benefits that non-premium pet foods allegedly do not have when they are comprised of essentially the same material;

# The Defendants deceptively market dry food as “good” for cats despite the fact that studies demonstrate that dry food is associated with a higher incidence of feline lower urinary tract disease;

# The Defendants deceptively market dry food as “good” for dogs but dry food that is comprised of cheap cereal fillers, additives and dyes contain ingredients that cause allergies, bloating and gastric upset, among other things;

# The Defendants tout their pet food as “wholesome,” but it is basically corn and other cheap carbohydrate fillers; and

# The Defendants marketing omits to advise the Plaintiffs of the predominance of processed carbohydrates, allergenic substances, low grade proteins and known and/or unknown ingredients and/or additives that have detrimental effects on the health of dogs and cats contrary to what the Plaintiffs and consumers are lead to believe.

#The Defendants’ deliberately “Humanize” Pet Food to Obtain Greater Market Share and even more Staggering Profits

# The Defendants’ Marketing of Commercial Pet Food Misleads the Plaintiffs and Consumers

EXAMPLES OF MISLEADING. NOTE: TONS of them, regarding other companies, but I only quoted these)

# Mars’ “Good Life Recipe”
™
An example of the manner in which Mars misleads consumers as to only one of ™ brand. The “Good Life Recipe”™ is a recently launched its products is the “Good Life Recipe” commercial pet food. The “humanization” of this brand is patent in every aspect of this commercial pet food’s marketing and is intended to capitalize on the emotional bond between the consumer and their cats and dogs by deceptively and/or falsely and/or negligently representing what the consumer is purchasing for the companion animal: Good food inspired by pet-loving people like you.

We don't believe people are pet owners. People own TVs, cars and vacation homes. But they don't own pets. They have a relationship with their pets. They enjoy bonds that are sometimes stronger than family. So it's not surprising that people want to provide their pets with the healthiest and best tasting food. That's where The Goodlife Recipe™ pet food comes in. We use the best ingredients in the right balance to create great food and snacks for cats and dogs. Because we believe, pets that
eat well are pets that live well. And when your pet is living well, you're living well.

See the Goodlife Recipe™ “Our Mission” web page attached hereto as Exhibit “12.” The “Good Life Recipe”™ website further states: A healthy, balanced diet your four-legged friends will love! Every bag of The Goodlife Recipe™ food for cats or dogs is a perfect blend of six tasty ingredient groups like real chicken, beef or salmon, healthy vegetables and hearty whole grains - created with our nutritionally balanced "pet food pyramid" as a guide. It's our way of giving your pets all the enjoyable taste and essential nutrients they need without any of the artificial additives they don't. And who wouldn't love that?

See the “Goodlife Recipe™” “What’s Inside” website page attached hereto as Exhibit “13.” This commercial pet food is designed to appeal to the consumers’ understanding of the human food pyramid and to lead people to believe that they are purchasing quality food for their special companion cats and dogs that is primarily made of human quality food items such as “real” meat, fish, wholesome grains and vegetables. <SNIP>

Mars’ Pedigree®

77. The name “Pedigree”®, another of Defendant Mars’ brands, implies a food fit for an expensive pure bred companion dog. This is reinforced by the claims on the website: Help your dog be the best he can be with PEDIGREE® Dry Food. <SNIP>

http://www.mflegal.com/petfoodlawsuit

_________________
GUESTS: To Post-Please
REGISTER HERE --> http://tinyurl.com/6yv32b

LetsTalkPetFoods@gmail.com
www.AnimalsSpeak.org
http://letstalkpetfoods.wordpress.com/