WELFARE - Wrongful Deaths and Civil Suits

(Vern, courtesy Tim Reeves)

In 2014, Officer Rodney Price of the Anne Arundel County police service shot and killed Vern, a four-year-old Chesapeake Bay retriever.

The shooting is one of many such incidents, but this one is notable because three years later a jury has awarded Vern’s family $1.26 million in damages.

This amount includes $500,000 in monetary damages and $760,000 for the anguish the family suffered as a result of the shooting.

The question of how to handle pet deaths caused by police officers is a fraught issue in contemporary America.

Late last year a federal court determined that officers are justified in shooting dogs that bark or move during a police raid.

And, earlier this year, a federal judge rejected a request to dismiss a lawsuit filed after an officer shot and killed a dog who charged at him when he entered a yard to search for a missing child.

The courts seem undecided on how to handle situations of pet deaths, and that ambiguity is likely to remain a factor for quite some time.

Pets are in a shifting legal position right now, no longer considered mere property but still not given the same consideration under the law that a person would be.

Some legal scholars have proposed that animals be treated as “living property,” which would introduce a new legal category of property and would afford non-human animals legal rights.

Austria, Germany, and Switzerland all have legislation that defines animals as something other than property, but none of these countries take the legislation so far as to consider animals persons under the law.

Personhood under the law doesn’t necessarily mean that fewer dogs would be killed, or that their families would more easily or consistently receive compensation.

America’s grappling with police shootings and wrongful deaths extend far beyond the many animals shot and killed each year, and the $1.26 million damages awarded following Vernon’s death stand in stark contrast to other recent lawsuit settlements.

Last month, a Cook County jury awarded $350,000 in damages after ruling that the police shooting of Christian Green, a 17-year-old black teen, was unjustified.

A 2014 report by the Washington Post found that municipalities pay out millions of dollars settling lawsuits related to police abuse, and a 2015 report by the same paper highlighted the uneven results of civil suits.

Some claimants receive awards in the millions, and some receive nothing.

There are many factors that influence how, and whether, families receive financial compensation following a wrongful death, but often these cases require proof of improper training or past misconduct.

The issue of wrongful police killings of humans, which disproportionately impact racialized communities in both America and Canada, is a separate issue from that of police shootings of dogs.

But they share an element in common – these killings are often committed by police officers who have not received adequate training in de-escalation, threat assessment, and non-lethal response.

Officers have been trained to use force first, and efforts to move to de-escalation training (which could reduce avoidable deaths), has met some resistance.

Although civil lawsuits offer families some compensation following these tragic deaths, no dollar amount can be sufficient.

There remains a need to teach officers how to respond more effectively to perceived threats.

In 2013, following Vern’s death, owner Tim Reeves questioned the safety of an officer discharging his weapon in a residential neighbourhood. He said, “I’m just glad it wasn’t a person.”

Unfortunately, sometimes, it is a person.

About Tiffany Sostar

Tiffany is a published academic, an editor with the Editors Association of Canada, an independent scholar and researcher, and a self-care and narrative coach. She is particularly interested in the intersection of technology and identity - how our tools shape our selves and change our stories, and in how the nature of work is changing as we incorporate more technology into our daily lives.

BUSINESS - Prescription Pet Foods Face Class Action Lawsuit

A California class action lawsuit alleges that pet food manufacturers Nestle Purina, Mars Petcare, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition, pet supply chain PetSmart, and veterinary chains Banfield Pet Hospital and BluePearl Vet conspired to falsely promote prescription pet food.

The veterinarian writes a prescription for the specialty food which is then filled at a supplier such as PetSmart.

The complaint argues here is no reason for each brand of pet food to require a prescription, as they “contain no drug or other ingredient not also common in non-prescription pet food.”

The prescription pet food sold by Mars, Purina, and Hill’s are not evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and contain no drugs or other legally controlled substances, the plaintiffs state.

Therefore, according to the class action, selling the expensive pet food as requiring a prescription is unfair and deceptive under California consumer protection laws.

The suit includes veterinary clinics because they write the prescription, the manufacturers who make the food and PetSmart because they sell it.

According to the complaint, Mars owns 79 percent of Banfield Pet Hospital, and PetSmart owns the other 21 percent. Many Banfield clinics are inside PetSmart locations. In addition, Mars owns 100 percent of Blue Pearl Vet Hospital.

In the case filing, plaintiffs stated that they and others had overpaid for the prescription formulations and made purchases that they wouldn’t have if not for the prescription requirement.

“We are aware of the recent lawsuit in Northern California against Mars Petcare US, Banfield, Blue Pearl, PetSmart, Hills Pet Nutrition and Nestle Purina Petcare,” Courtney Suthoff, representing Mars Petcare’s Royal Canin for public relation agency FeishmanHillard, told Petfood Industry. “While we do not otherwise comment on pending litigation, we believe the allegations to be without merit and will defend ourselves accordingly.”

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

Nestlé Petcare Half Year Results

Compared to last year Nestlé has had lower revenue growth in the first half of 2015. According to Nestlé, “The results of the first half allow us to reconfirm our outlook for the full year: we aim to achieve organic growth of around 5% with improvements in margins and underlying earnings per share in constant currencies, and capital efficiency.”

• Sales of CHF 42.8 billion (Convert to USD), 4.5% organic growth, 1.7% real internal growth
• Trading operating profit margin 15.0%, up 20 basis points in constant currencies
• Underlying earnings per share up 7.3% in constant currencies

Petcare in North America showed good growth, in spite of the negative impact from the Beneful case. Among the drivers were Fancy Feast cat food, the Pro Plan platform for dog food, and cat litter. Petcare continued to be a growth driver for Latin America and will benefit from new production capacity in Argentina and Mexico.

For Petcare, the half year sales were $5.465 billion CHF with an organic growth of 4.9%. Trading operating profit margins were 21.0% with an increase of 110bps from the first half of 2014.

READ THE 2015 HALF YEAR PRESS RELEASE

Paragon Pet Products Europe B.V. Sues Mars For Alleged False Advertising

Paragon Pet Products Europe B.V. filed a lawsuit against Mars Inc.. Mars claims that their Greenies Dental Chews are “The #1 Vet-Recommended Dental Chews and Treats*” (*In pet specialty stores, among U.S. veterinarians who recommend dental chews and treats for at-home oral care). Paragon believes that this claim is deceiving customers through false advertising. On July 20th, the judge granted an order directing Mars to “produce all substantiation (e.g., documents, reports, studies, data, emails, and so forth” for the claim, “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew.” A conference was held on July 28th and the pre-motion conference is scheduled for November 4. Fact discovery is due by October 30, motions due by November 16, responses due by December 4, and replies due by December 11.

Paragon produces Whimzees Dental Chews. According to Pet Food Industry, “Paragon’s complaint seeks an injunction requiring Mars to halt further use of the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” claim, to offer refunds to deceived purchasers of Greenies dental chews, and to correct and abate prior false advertising statements, including by correction or recall of Greenies retail packaging which contains the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” claim. Paragon is also seeking monetary relief.”

READ MORE ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT

False Advertising in the Pet Food Industry! What Are You Actually Feeding Your Pet?

In May 2014 Purina filed a false advertising lawsuit against Blue Buffalo. On May 6th, 2015, Blue Buffalo admitted that a “substantial” and “material” portion of Blue Buffalo pet food contained poultry byproduct meal despite advertising that their foods never have chicken or poultry byproduct meals. According to Keith Schopp, a spokesperson for Nestlé Purina Petcare, “Only when faced with undeniable evidence from the lawsuit has Blue Buffalo admitted the truth to the court: a ‘substantial’ and ‘material’ portion of Blue Buffalo pet food sold over the past several years contained poultry byproduct meal. It is unclear to us if or when this practice stopped, or whether any Blue Buffalo pet food containing byproduct meal is still on store shelves.” Read the May 6th, 2015 hearing.

Schopp said, “Despite this admission, Blue Buffalo still has not informed consumers of the presence of poultry byproduct meal in Blue Buffalo pet food, refuses to accept responsibility for the product it sold and is instead blaming its suppliers.” The date of this quotation is unknown. On July 23, 2014, Blue Buffalo challenged the “scientific adequacy and reliability” of the laboratory tests Purina had performed on Blue Buffalo food and called it "junk science". Blue Buffalo did inform their customers about some foods containing poultry by-prodcut meal on October 14th, 2014; five months after Purina filed the lawsuit. Blue Buffalo addresses Purina’s latest allegations; “In October of last year, we informed you that a supplier of ingredients to us and many other well-known brands of pet foods had sent chicken meal to some of their customers that contained poultry by-product meal. In view of this new information, this past Wednesday, May 6, 2015 we informed the Court of our conclusion that a material amount of our dry foods manufactured with mislabeled ingredients shipped prior to May 2014 had been impacted, and requested permission to bring a claim against this former supplier and others involved for intentionally mislabeling ingredients and unjustly enriching themselves. The Court immediately granted our request.”

“Through a $50 million annual advertising campaign that flooded airwaves and pet food aisles alike, Blue Buffalo told consumers over and over, emphatically and without qualification, that its products never contain poultry byproduct meal,” said Schopp. “Blue Buffalo now claims it had no way of knowing the bags contained byproduct meal. A manufacturer is responsible for knowing what’s in its product, and a simple audit of its supply chain would have revealed what we discovered after reviewing the documentation. Blue Buffalo owes consumers an apology for all the false statements, false labels and false advertising. More than this, it is time for Blue Buffalo to be transparent with the public and prove to their ‘pet parents’ that no mislabeled product remains on shelves.”

Blue Buffalo is far from the only company to mislabel pet foods. Researchers (Isabella R Maine, Robert Atterbury, and Kin-Chow Chang) at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, Sutton Bonington Campus, University of Nottingham recently conducted a study on the ingredients in several wet pet foods sold in the United Kingdom. Seventeen popular wet dog and cat foods were included in the study. These foods were then tested for the DNA of four different animal species. In fourteen of the tested foods chicken, bovine, and porcine DNA was found though these proteins were not listed in the ingredients. Only two of the seven foods marketed as “with beef” contained more beef than pork and chicken combined. Maine et al. want to see “Full disclosure of animal contents will (a) allow more informed choices to be made on purchases which are particularly important for pets with food allergies, (b) reduce the risk of product misinterpretation by shoppers.”

There are many articles circulating about the false advertising lawsuit, some may be found here, here, and here.

Lawsuit Claims Purina's Beneful Is Poisoning, Killing Dogs

A recent lawsuit filed against Nestle Purina PetCare Company is claiming that one of the company's most popular dog food brands contains toxins that are poisoning and even killing people's pets. 

The lawsuit, filed in California federal court last month by pet owner Frank Lucido, alleges that thousands of dogs have become ill or died as a result of eating Beneful dry kibble dog food. Lucido, whose three dogs all suffered symptoms synonymous with poisoning, is one of more than 3,000 complaints consumers have made online of dogs becoming ill and/or dying after eating the kibble. 

"There are no quality issues with Beneful," said Purina in a response statement. "We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful had two previous class action lawsuits filed in recent years with similar baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts." 

READ THIS NBC NEWS ARTICLE FOR MORE INFORMATION