Test results provided to company; no response so far

By Lisa Wade McCormick, ConsumerAffairs.com

Lab results on a sample of the recalled NUTRO cat food reveal the product contains “concerning” and “sky high” levels of zinc that could cause gastrointestinal problems and liver and kidney damage in felines, according to a veterinary toxicologist.

The non-profit Pet Food Products Safety Alliance (PFPSA) hired Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory to test a sample of the recently recalled NUTRO Max Adult Roasted Chicken Flavor cat food.

Those test results reveal the food contains an excessive amount of zinc — 2100 parts per million (ppm).

“The concentration of zinc identified in this report of 2100 ppm is very high,” said Dr. Stephen Hansen, a veterinary toxicologist and senior vice-president of Animal Health for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). “That zinc level jumps off the page. It is awfully high and does concern us. It’s certainly gotten our attention.”

Do those high levels of zinc pose health problems for cats?

“The problem in this case is that we believe no one actually knows (or at least has published) the effects of 2100 ppm dietary zinc long-term in cats,” Dr. Hansen said. “Typically, cats are more tolerant of high zinc than other species, including dogs and humans.

“But it’s certainly possible that those levels of zinc would likely cause health problems in cats that could involve significant intestinal upset and liver and kidney damage.”

FOR COMPLETE STORY, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

~Sandy G.

Agency claims there is no investigation, so records should be released, site argues

ConsumerAffairs.com has appealed the refusal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release lab results, citizen complaints and other documents related to NUTRO pet food.

The consumer Web site has received more than 800 reports from consumers who say their pets became ill and, in some cases, died after eating NUTRO products. ConsumerAffairs.com first requested the FDA documents under the Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) last spring, but the FDA denied the request, saying that granting it could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Questioned by ConsumerAffairs.com reporter Lisa Wade McCormick, an FDA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the request was denied because the agency was investigating NUTRO. But the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) then issued a press release claiming that NUTRO was not being investigated.

The CVM is not the FDA division that handles complaints about pet food and is not the division to which the FDA employee who confirmed the investigation is assigned.

“Though the reports on whether the FDA is investigating Nutro have been conflicting, the FDA’s official position is that there is no pending investigation of Nutro. Therefore, the FDA may not rely on the ‘law enforcement’ exemption of FOIA because, according to the FDA, there is no pending enforcement proceeding against Nutro,” said Cameron Stracher, a New York attorney who represents ConsumerAffairs.com.

Despite the FDA’s denial that it is investigating NUTRO, consumers have confirmed that FDA inspectors came to their homes investigating their pets’ deaths.

In one instance, the FDA investigator told a consumer that he had learned of her pet’s death by reading her complaint on ConsumerAffairs.com.

FOR COMPLETE STORY, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

~Sandy G.

~Sandy G.

One case is settled but controversy over destroyed pet food continues

By Jon Hood, ConsumerAffairs.com

Recall-tainted Menu Foods’ destruction of a huge amount of evidence is having a potentially devastating impact on at least two ongoing court cases.

The company last year settled a $24 million lawsuit that grew from the largest pet food recall in U.S. history. The case was heard in New Jersey and parties are still wrapping up various items on the docket, but now a Washington state litigant is charging that the company illegally destroyed thousands of samples of food, potentially leaving him without evidence to pursue his claim.

During discovery for the New Jersey suit, the defendants collected thousands of cases of pet food — both recalled and non-recalled — in their warehouse. In December 2007, the defendants claimed that preserving all of these samples was an unnecessary waste of time and money. The court agreed, and allowed the defendants to destroy all but 500 units of recalled pet food.

FOR COMPLETE STORY, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

~Sandy G.