LEGAL - California Bill to Allow Tax Credit for Veterinary Costs

Most every pet owner has received a vet bill and wondered how they were going to afford it.

The American Pet Products Association estimates that pet owners spend $16 billion per year on veterinary care.

To help pet owners in California, Assemblyman Devon Mathis, R-Visalia introduced a bill that would allow dog and cat owners to claim veterinary expenses.

If passed, Assembly Bill 942 will give dog and cat owners in California an income tax credit that allows them to write off 50% of the amount paid for qualified veterinary medical expenses, up to a maximum of $2000 per year.

Mathis said almost everyone he knows has a tragic story about a family dog or cat that had to be euthanized due to a serious and costly medical issue.

“What if you don’t have to put them down?” Mathis said. “This is an incentive to do the surgery and keep them in the family.”

This is not the first such bill to be proposed.

In 2009, then Michigan State Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R) proposed a bill that would allow for pet owners to deduct up to $3500 per calendar year for veterinary health care expenses.

That bill was stalled in the Ways and Means Committee and never passed.

California’s Bill 942 was proposed on February 16 and may be heard as early as March 19.

LEGISLATION - Proposed California Law Aims to Save Pets in Hot Cars

A proposed California state law called the ‘Right to Rescue Act’ (AB 797) would permit concerned citizens to save an animal believed to be in danger ‘by any means’.

(Citizen breaking window to remove dog from hot car, Ontario, 2016)

The act ‘provides legal immunity for a person who damages a car in a good faith effort to save an animal from dangerous conditions while trapped in a hot car.’

The act is a joint venture by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Humane Society of the United States.

Authored by Republican assembly member Marc Steinorth, he asserts there has been very little opposition to the bill but there is some concern that criminals will use it as an excuse to break windows.

“My only concern is sometimes people will jump the gun, so to speak, and just want to go in there and get the animal out without first giving themselves an opportunity to evaluate the situation or have someone in an official capacity evaluate the situation. But I like the idea that we can help them sooner than later,” he said, adding that waiting for law enforcement to arrive may be too late for the animal.

It's possible crime could lead to the inadvertent rescue of a dog trapped in a sweltering truck, as is the case in a recent instance where thieves broke into a car parked near a Chicago pub to steal a laptop – and wound up freeing a dog trapped in the sweltering vehicle where the outside temperatures had reached into the 80s (likely around 120F in the vehicle).

In order to be granted immunity, the person must be in compliance with the following:

Determine the car is locked or there is no other reasonable method to remove the animal from the vehicle; have a reasonable and good faith belief that the animal is in imminent danger if not immediately removed; contact law enforcement prior to entering the vehicle; use no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle; and, if the person does enter the vehicle, the person must remain nearby with the animal in a safe location until law enforcement arrives. The person may not leave the scene.

The bill follows closely acts enacted in Florida, Michigan, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

This year has seen other states enact such legislation.

In Ohio, former 2016 Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich signed Bill 215 in March, allowing people to break animals and children in distress free from hot vehicles; the bill comes into effect at the end of August.

A similar bill was passed by the Massachusetts Senate in June.

By Lindsay Seewalt

Lindsay is an experienced journalist and mother of three whose heart and home is always open to a four-legged friend. With her Corgi, Angie, as household editor-in-chief, Lindsay gives back to the animal planet through the written word on anything and all ado about pets. She is passionate about topics regarding animal welfare and responsible pet ownership, which she aims to instill in both her readers and children to be compassionate animal lovers who are conscious and considerate that furry friends around the globe deserve a voice.

Lawsuits Spread Regarding Allegedly Using Fish Caught by Slave Labourers

Right on the heels of the lawsuit against Nestlé for allegedly using fish caught by slave labourers is a lawsiut against Big Heart Pet Brands (owned by Smuckers) for allegedly importing pet food from suppliers that use slave labour.

One of the suppliers that Nestlé uses, Thai Union Frozen Products, has exported almost 30 million pounds of pet food into the United States. Thai Union has been linked with slave labour. Hagens Berman alleges that Big Heart Pet Brands also imports products from Thai Union and is therefore using products that were caught by slave labourers. Bergman said Big Heart Pet Brands does not disclose that they use fish caught by slave labourers and that violates California law.

The law firm that is representing Bergman states, “Based on our investigation and media reports, Hagens Berman attorneys believe that Thai Union relies on forced or slave labor to catch the fish used in fish-based Meow Mix-brand wet cat foods. These men and boys are victims of many human rights violations: they are trafficked from countries neighboring Thailand, sold to fishing boats by brokers and smugglers, and forced to work under physical violence, emotional abuse, and verbal threats. Reports by the New York Times and The Guardian have recently shed light on these inhumane working conditions.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Nestlé Sued for Allegedly Using Fish Caught by Slave Laborers

The class action suit has been filed in the Central District of California for violation of California consumer protection laws. The case file states, “America’s largest and most profitable food conglomerates should not tolerate slave labor anywhere in their supply chains. These companies should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk from investigating potential human rights abuses by their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically responsible manner. When these food conglomerates fail to uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of slave labor in their supply chains, their misconduct has the profound consequence of supporting and encouraging slave labor. And when these food conglomerates fail to disclose the use of slave labor in their supply chains to consumers, they are deceived into buying products they would not have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting slave labor themselves through their product purchases.”

Nestlé has a partner in Thailand, Thai Union Frozen Products PCL (Thai Union). According to United States custom documents Thai Union shipped in excess of 28 million pounds of seafood-based pet food into the United States. Thai Union is a vertically integrated producer, processor, and exporter of canned seafood and pet food. Thai Union uses fish that are sourced from “motherships”; motherships are large boats that collect fish from smaller fishing vessels and markets. Director of Anti-Slavery International, Aidan McQuade said, “If you buy prawns or shrimp from Thailand, you will be buying the product of slave labor.”

The case file states, “In the course of marketing and selling its pet foods, however, Nestlé materially omits and does not disclose the likelihood that much of the fish in its pet food is the product of slave labor. Furthermore, Nestlé does not disclose that despite its awareness that slave labor is being used in its supply chains, Nestlé has not required its suppliers to remedy this human tragedy.”

READ ABOUT THE LAWSUIT

Nestle Purina uses California Sunshine to Dry Litter Clay