Appeals Could Stall Pet Food Recall Settlement January 9, 2009

Source: DogChannel.com

Two appeals filed in December 2008 will postpone payment of claims.

Posted: January 9, 2009, 5 a.m. EST

Compensation payments for pet owners affected by 2007’s pet food recall may be delayed due to appeals filed against a $24 million settlement agreed upon by companies that manufactured and dealt the contaminated food.

More than 23,000 pet owners in the United States have asked to receive compensation in the settlement, and those with approved claims were to start receiving checks in 2009. However, two appeals were filed in December 2008. According to the case’s claims administrator website, that means the payment of claims will be postponed.

“No payments may be made on eligible claims until all appeals are resolved,” the website states. “It is uncertain how long these appeals will take to resolve, and the timing of resolving the appeals is not within the control of the parties or their counsel. It is not uncommon for appeals to take several months or even years to resolve.”

The case began in March 2007 when Menu Foods, of Ontario, Canada, recalled more than 50 brands of dog food and more than 40 brands of cat food after a number of pets became sick. Several other companies soon followed suit. The recall eventually covered approximately 180 brands of pet food and treats produced by 12 different manufacturers and distributed, marketed, and sold to dozens of retailers.

Wheat gluten and rice-protein concentrate imported from China were found to have been contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical used to make plastic, and cyanuric acid — the combination of which can lead to acute renal failure in small animals.

Menu Foods and other companies involved in the pet food recall agreed to pay up to $24 million in a settlement, which was approved by a federal judge in October 2008. Canadian courts approved the settlement in November.

The settlement agreement creates a settlement fund that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100 percent of economic damages incurred by pet owners. Pet owners can receive up to $900 for undocumented claims.

One of the appeals to the settlement concerns alleged mislabeling of pet food as “Made in the USA.” The other regards the fairness and adequacy of the settlement, among other arguments. Details were not immediately available.

Solid Gold Formula Voluntary Recall January 5, 2009

Turkey, Ocean Fish, Carrot, & Sweet Potatoes Formula Canned Dog Food 13.2 oz Cans – POP-TOP CANS ONLY WITH A ‘USE BY DATE 01/02/2010′ located on the bottom of can

A limited production of this Turkey canned food was made with the POP-TOP, and none of the product was distributed in any of the following states: Arizona, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Hawaii, or Alaska.

Solid Gold has received several complaints regarding mold found in a batch of 13.2 oz canned Turkey, Ocean Fish, Carrot, & Sweet Potatoes Formula, with Pop-Tops. As a precautionary measure, they ask that you return any of this product with the ‘Use By Date 01/02/2010′; you will find these numbers on the bottom of the cans.

• 13.2 oz Turkey and Ocean Fish Canned Dog Food.

• Purple label with a POP -TOP (Pull top) only.

• Date on bottom of can 01/02/2010.
• Turkey and Ocean Fish cans without a Pop-Top are not affected.

Melamine Lawsuits Settled in Canada with $24M December 2, 2008

Source: PetPulse.com, Dec 1, 2008

TORONTO — Menu Foods Income Fund will have to reimburse pet owners for the medical troubles and deaths caused by their tainted pet food, Canadian judges announced on Thursday.

The $24 million settlement covers more than 100 class-action lawsuits related to the recall of 60 million cans of pet food laced with melamine, a toxic chemical commonly found in kitchen plastic ware.

The Canadian approval was first granted in principal on Nov. 3, following U.S. courts’ approval of the deal on Oct. 14, as Pet Pulse previously reported.

Canadian pet owners are now set to receive a share of the $24 million, designated to cover expenses that stemmed from the recall, like unprecedented veterinary bills.

“The money should start flowing very soon,” said Harvey Strosberg, one of the class-action lawyers involved in negotiating the settlement. “The deal is fair and reasonable.”

This ruling closes the final chapter of the year-and-a-half old case against the Ontario-based food company, which recalled the food after 1,500 pets died from its effects in Spring 2007.

The Federal Drug Administration also received an additional 15,000 complaints about the wheat gluten-based food, which came from a Chinese importer, ChemNutra.

The company was later charged with importing 800 tons of contaminated wheat gluten valued at $850,000.

The tainted feed was found in Iams, Eukanuba and President’s Choice products. The brands were distributed to Wal-Marts and other major pet and grocery stores across the country.

In a July statement on Menu Foods Income Fund’s Web site, CEO Paul Henderson expressed remorse for the situation, writing, “We feel that the pet owners, along with Menu and other pet food producers, were victims of terrible fraud committed by a company in China.”

The settlement, he expressed, could allow the company to focus again on rebuilding its business, “the cornerstone of which is producing and selling high-quality pet food.”

The pet food industry is just one business sector affected by the outbreak of melamine-laced food products across the world.

In September, tainted milk and infant formula led to the implication of several companies and the illness of nearly 53,000 people and four infant deaths in China.

Those in the U.S. might not be immune, however, as the Federal Drug and Administration announced on Thursday that it found traces of melamine in some samples Nestle’s Good Start Supreme Infant Formula.

The Chinese government has vowed to take action, and has sought to limit the release of dairy products from the country until all cases have been resolved.

Melamine, which can cause kidney malfunction and potential failure, is thought to artificially boost levels of protein in dairy products.

Last Chance for Tainted Pet Food Settlement November 23, 2008

Source: KRDO, November 22, 2008

COLORADO SPRINGS – If you were one of the millions affected by the 2007 pet food recall you have until Monday to file a claim and receive money.

The pet food may have contained contaminated wheat gluten or rice protein concentrate and were recalled beginning in March 2007,

The companies involved in the recall have agreed on a 24 million dollar settlement.

If you were one of those affected you must have documentation of financial damages from the recall. The documentation could be a veterinarian bills or credit card statements. It also includes product labels and any other records that could demonstrate your purchased the food and how you paid.

The claim must be postmarked by November 24. It can also be e-mailed or faxed.

For more information on the settlement click here.

Buying a ‘Natural’ Pet Food Product is Like Buying Fool’s Gold November 15, 2008

Source: (NaturalNews) By SusanThixton, Nov 12, 2008

A recent survey from the GoodLife Recipe Pet Food company provided by (www.mediapost.com)
website states that two-thirds of pet owners don’t consider cost when
selecting a dog food or cat food. Their survey states that nearly 60%
of pet owners said that “natural ingredients” are the most important
issue to influence a pet food purchase. The problem for pet owners is
that searching for a pet food labeled ‘Natural’ can be like finding
fool’s gold.

AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control
Officials) and the FDA has no official definition for the word
‘natural’ in pet food regulations. ‘Natural’ on a pet food label
implies the food should be free of risky chemicals, colors, or any
ingredient considered treated or disguised. You know… natural. But
instead, under current pet food regulations, any pet food manufacturer
can make the claim ‘natural’ on the label, yet the food could contain
many ingredients most would not consider natural; such as added
chemicals, colors, and other unnatural ingredients. Even though there
are no survey results to substantiate this, my guess would be that
almost every pet owner who seeks out ‘natural ingredients’ in their dog
food or cat food choices, firmly believes the food is natural.

The power of advertising

A northern California newspaper InsideBayArea.com
puts advertising of pet food into a realistic light — “Playful puppies
and adorable kittens almost seem to jump out of the colorful packages,
beckoning pet owners to choose their very special brands of food. Large
pallets containing bags of dry food, stacks of orderly cans and rows of
moist pouches often leave pet owners literally dazed and confused with
the overwhelming selection. Marketing ideas leap off the products
claiming to be “organic”, to have “no by-products” and to have “real,
wholesome ingredients.” All of these speak to us as ways to provide the
very best for our family members. But in light of pet food recalls and
concerns about pet food manufacturing, how can pet owners really know
they are providing the best?

That’s a difficult question; really
knowing you are providing the best food for your dog or cat is not as
easy as it should be. It should be that a pet owner can read the pet
food label claiming ‘natural’ or ‘real wholesome ingredients’ knowing
that label is providing true and accurate information. It should be
that pet owners are provided with ingredient country of origin
information on the label. It should be that pet food labels clearly
state if dangerous chemicals or inferior ingredients are used. ‘Should
be’ is not what ‘is’ however.

What ‘is’ legally allowed on pet food labels:

Unqualified
claims (either directly or indirectly) – Pictures displaying choice
cuts of meat even if no meat is provided in the food. Misleading pet
food names such as Albacore Tuna ‘Flavor’ or Sirloin Steak ‘Flavor’ –
no tuna or steak is required to be in the pet food. The list goes on
and on.

You can imagine that dog foods and cat foods providing
accurate information on the label such as ‘Chemical Preservatives
inside linked to tumors and cancer’ or ‘Includes By-Products rejected
for use in human food’ wouldn’t be top sellers at the pet store. The
pet food companies that use these types of ingredients are not forced
by regulations to tell you; which in turn hurts the companies that
wouldn’t consider using risky chemicals or inferior by-products in
their foods. One pet food might actually contain natural ingredients
yet because of existing rules and regulations, they can’t tell you
anything different than the pet food who claims natural while using
added colors and risky chemicals. All pet food labels must stay within
particular parameters, hiding the truth from pet owners. Hiding the
truth of quality ingredients and hiding the truth of risky ingredients.

Pet
food regulations need to be changed — yesterday. As the research shows
the majority of pet owners are actively seeking out dog and cat foods
that are natural. That’s great news and would be beneficial to millions
of pets if only someone could decide what ‘natural’ means. But since
AAFCO and the FDA give pet owners no official definition for ‘natural’,
pet owners might as well be searching for Fool’s Gold. Current pet food
regulations designate ‘Fool’s Gold’ and ‘Natural Pet Food’ to have an
equal value.

Ongoing Pet Food Recalls Have this Pet Sitter Barking Mad November 15, 2008

Source: PRWeb, Pub. Nov 15, 2008
Happy Trails & Wag’n Tails is doing their part to find natural products to keep pets safe from pet food recalls and heartbreaking medical problems such as cancer and kidney failure. Some common factors are poor quality pet food, toxic chemicals in household cleaners and pet vaccination overload.

Glendora, CA (PRWEB) November 15, 2008 — The pet food recalls in 2007 had many pet parents concerned over their pet foods safety. Unfortunately, many have resorted back to the same food or something similar, setting themselves up for more possible problems occurring in the pet food industry.

HSUS has reported more than 10 recalls since the major pet food recall involving Menu Foods.

For the last year, I have made it my mission to find why pets are experiencing organ failure or suffering from things like allergies and how they are linked to common pet products or practices like vaccines.

Knowing that my holistic veterinarian recommends this food, I know I have found a premium pet food to offer my dog and customers

Even in this struggling economy, you can save money on your pet expenses!

Ms. Madden of Happy Trails & Wag’n Tails says, “For the last year, I have made it my mission to find why pets are experiencing organ failure or suffering from things like allergies and how they are linked to common pet products or practices like vaccines.”

Sorting through the hundreds of pet foods can be quite a daunting task for pet parents. To address this issue, Happy Trails & Wag’n Tails spent countless hours researching things such as pet food recalls and what makes a quality meal for pets. Home made diets can be an intimidating task, although excellent if done correctly. For that reason, this should only be done under the guidance of a vet. Realizing many pet guardians will not cook for their pets, finding a premium pet food kibble is the next best thing.

Holistic or organic pet food is an excellent choice since it does not have by-products or chemical preservatives like BHT and BHA. An added bonus, is it human grade quality. However, not all natural and holistic pet foods are created equal. Here are a few very important questions you should ask yourself.

1) Is manufacturing and packaging kept in house or is it outsourced to another company? This is relevant due to possibility of cross contamination.
2) What are the ingredients used in the food, and are they coming from trusted sources with the United States?
3) Is the food oven baked or extruded? Oven baking makes for easier digestion. It also aids in the prevention of bloat.
4) Does is contain a healthy balance of protein, vitamins, minerals, and omega fatty acids?
5) Is it bagged in smaller quantities? Ex: 40 lbs of dog food is packaged as two 20 lb bags. Importance? Once a bag is opened, freshness starts to decrease.

Flint River Ranch Natural Pet Food meets all these criteria. “Knowing that my holistic veterinarian recommends this food, I know I have found a premium pet food to offer my dog and customers,” said Ms. Madden, Flint River Ranch Independent Distributor.

“Even in this struggling economy, you can save money on your pet expenses!” exclaimed Madden. Flint River Ranch pet food, whose price includes UPS shipping, is super concentrated so you can feed 20-25% less of this food compared to commercial pet food while still maintaining proper nutrition. Therefore, the cost breakdown of FRR pet food is the same or less than the brand you are currently feeding. Specifically, Flint River Ranch Dog Food is $1.74 p/lb (based on 40 lb bag) and Flint River Ranch Cat Food is $2.25 p/lb (based on 20 lb bag). Bottom-line, prevention is cheaper than a cure!

Whether your canine needs a hypoallergenic formula or your feline is a picky eater, FRR has a variety of types and sizes of natural food and treats for cats and dogs. They offer the convenience of on-line ordering, 3-5 days UPS nationwide shipping of fresh food and optional automated shipping. FRR is so confident you will see positive results in your pet such as reduction in itchy dry skin and hot spots; they offer a 30-day guarantee.

Happy Trails & Wag’n Tails owner, Ms. Madden, is a life long pet lover and pet parent. H.T.W.T, has applied a strict selection process to all products in order to provide pet products that stand out from the crowd. Our priorities are to pets with holistic and eco-friendly products and practices in mind.

Mars Petcare US Chow Factory’s Toll of Human Salmonella Hits 79 November 6, 2008

By Kurt Heine

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) — A Mars Petcare US Inc. factory churned out bacteria-contaminated dog and cat chow for three years, spreading salmonella that sickened at least 79 people in the first human outbreak traced to dry pet food, a report said.

The last reported illness was Oct. 18, after Mars said it would permanently close the suburban Philadelphia factory. That suggests people are still feeding pets tainted dry food that the company voluntarily recalled Sept. 12, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published today.

The report is the first to conclusively link the Mars Petcare plant in Elverson, Pennsylvania, to a rare form of salmonella that sickened people, mostly children, in 21 states since 2006. Salmonella is a type of food poisoning that can kill, though the CDC said it knows of no fatalities associated with the Mars Petcare chow. The disease likely was spread by handling the kibbble, lax cleaning of pet food bowls or touching animal droppings, said the CDC, based in Atlanta.

“Dry pet food has a one-year shelf life, and contaminated product might still be in the homes of purchasers and could produce illness,” said the CDC, which recommends people throw out food from the factory.

The Mars Petcare recall is among 13 involving 135 pet products for salmonella since 2006, the CDC said. No human illnesses have been associated with any other recall, according to the agency. The Mars Petcare withdrawal involved 105 brands of chow, including Special Kitty Gourmet Blend cat food and Pedigree and Retriever dog food.

Bertille Glass, a Mars spokeswoman, had no immediate comment.

Mars Petcare, based in Franklin, Tennessee, is owned by McLean, Virginia-based Mars, the maker of M&M candy and Snicker’s bars.

MARS RECALL Wal-Mart SPECIAL KITTY(R) Gourmet Blend Cat Food October 27, 2008

Source: PR Newswire

Last update: 3:31 p.m. EDT Oct. 27, 2008

FRANKLIN, Tenn., Oct 27, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Even though there is no link between the SPECIAL KITTY(R) Gourmet Blend dry cat food manufactured at the Allentown, Pennsylvania factory and any human or pet illness, we are taking precautionary action to protect pets and their owners by announcing a voluntary recall of all sizes of SPECIAL KITTY(R) Gourmet Blend produced at the facility on August 11, 2008. This action is being taken as a result of potential Salmonella contamination.

This voluntary recall affects only a limited number of bags of SPECIAL KITTY(R) Gourmet Blend dry cat food sold at Wal-Mart locations in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Mars Petcare has been working cooperatively with Wal-Mart to address this issue, and the affected product of this lot has already been removed from Wal-Mart’s shelves. As a result, consumers can be assured that all SPECIAL KITTY(R) Gourmet Blend products that remain on Wal-Mart’s shelves are safe and not subject to this recall.

Our top priority has always been and continues to be the health and welfare of pets and their owners, and we are working vigorously to identify the cause of the issue.

SOURCE Mars Petcare US

Feeding Your Pet Treats Could Be Harmful – Give Them a Nutritional Bonus Instead October 24, 2008

Source: NaturalNews, Friday, October 24, 2008 by: Susan Thixton

(NaturalNews) We all do it; we give our pets treats as a reward or just because we love them. And many times pet owners don’t think about the extra calories in treats or worse yet, consider if the treat contains harmful ingredients. It’s a treat, it won’t hurt anything… right? Well, it could. Dog and cat treats are not required to meet the nutritional standards of pet food and many are nothing more than junk food for pets adding useless calories and potentially dangerous ingredients to their diet. So please, don’t give your pet a treat –- give them a ‘bonus’.

A ‘bonus’ would be one of the many treats that contains added nutrients and health promoting ingredients. Some include nutrients that even pet food can’t provide or doesn’t provide enough of. A ‘bonus’ can add these health promoting benefits to your pet’s diet and many of them can do this in a low fat/low calorie fashion.

Poor quality treats contribute to the obesity problem in pets. I’ve talked to many pet owners who have been directed by their Veterinarian for the pet to lose a few pounds –- yet owners forget about the contribution that a handful of treats add to the weight problem. And right along with weight issues, many treats are made using by-products and chemical preservatives and utilize ingredients that are difficult for the pet to digest. You might be feeding your dog or cat the right food, yet they still show signs of being overweight or have digestion and/or allergy issues. It could be that you have forgotten about looking at the ingredients in treats. And good marketing helps to sway pet owners from even thinking about looking at the ingredients.

A few months back, I went to one of the pet super stores to browse the dog and cat treats just to see what they offered. A mom and her two sons with dog in tow were searching for dog treats. The only ones that caught their attention were treats that had some type of human food connection like ‘ribs’, ‘bacon’, and so forth. Never once did they look at the ingredients on the ‘ribs’ or ‘bacon’ treats. I did and every single variety they picked out contained by-products and BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin. The pet treat marketing lured them into a comfort zone thinking treats with names like ‘ribs’ and ‘bacon’ were as safe as human food. Again, every single treat this family picked out contained by-products and chemical preservatives linked to cancer. Pet owners must look at the ingredients of everything they feed their pets. Treat manufacturers are not going to alert you if they use risky ingredients. As you would guess, treats with the names ‘Chicken Feet Dog Treats’, ‘Cow Intestines Cat Treats’, or ‘Cancer Causing Chemical Treats’ won’t be top selling items; yet more treats than you realize contain all three of these undesirable ingredients.

Read those labels regardless of what the name of the dog treat or cat treat implies. Avoid treats that contain the ingredients ‘by-product’, ‘meat and bone meal’, ‘animal digest’, ‘BHA’, ‘BHT’, and ‘ethoxyquin’ (the short list). Look for health promoting ingredients like antioxidants and omega fats from natural sources and as supplements. Don’t forget about some ‘people food’ bonuses. Carrots, green beans, and apple slices make great treats for dogs (and even some cats). Canned pumpkin makes a great healthy treat for cats. Always consult your veterinarian if your pet has a health condition that requires care or you have any questions. Stop feeding treats, give your pet a nutritional bonus instead!

Menu Foods Income Fund: Settlement Agreement in U.S. Pet Food Multidistrict Litigation Receives Final Approval October 16, 2008

Last update: 1:11 p.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Oct 15, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) — Menu Foods Income Fund (TSX: MEW.UN) announced that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has certified the Settlement Class and given final approval of the comprehensive Settlement Agreement in the Pet Food Multi-District Litigation. The Settlement Agreement must also be approved by the Canadian courts. The motion for final approval in the Canadian courts is scheduled for November 3, 2008 and, if final Canadian court approval is obtained and no appeals are made, the settlement procedures would be implemented shortly thereafter. The Settlement Agreement would resolve more than 100 class action lawsuits filed in U.S. and Canadian courts relating to the recall of pet food and would be binding on all members of the Settlement Class, except for those individuals who have validly opted out of the settlement.

As previously disclosed, the Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of US$24 million that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100% of all economic damages incurred by pet owners, subject to certain limitations. The Settlement Fund, administered by a neutral claims administrator, will be available to persons in the United States and Canada who purchased or obtained, or whose pets used or consumed, recalled pet food.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Fund will be funded by the defendants, including Menu Foods and its product liability insurer. Menu Foods’ corporate contribution to the settlement is within Menu Foods’ previously published estimate for recall costs of C$55 million.

Paul Henderson, CEO of Menu Foods, commented: “The U.S. court approval is a significant milestone. If the Canadian courts approve the settlement, pet owners affected by the 2007 pet food recalls will receive compensation for their losses. Menu Foods looks forward to final resolution of this matter, which will enable us to focus on continuing the significant progress that has been made in rebuilding our business, namely delivering quality products to existing and new customers across North America.”

Persons with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods, but can contact the claims administrator at the following address:

In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
P.O. Box 890
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890
1-800-392-7785
 www.petfoodsettlement.com

Forward Looking Statements

This release includes certain forward-looking statements. Although Menu Foods believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements.

Contacts:
Investor Inquiries:
Menu Foods GenPar Limited
Mark Wiens - Chief Financial Officer
(905) 826-3870 (ext. 420)

Media Inquiries:
Hill & Knowlton Canada
Robert Merrick
(416) 413-4602

SOURCE: Menu Foods Income Fund