Good buying opportunity? (sarcasm)
Posted on 03/20/2007 4:17:06 PM PDT by kellynla
A Chicago woman sued Menu Foods on Tuesday, alleging the pet food manufacturer delayed announcing a recall of 60 million containers of dog and cat food despite knowing its products were contaminated and potentially deadly. Dawn Majerczyk, 43, said her orange tabby, Phoenix, fell sick last week just two days after he ate a single package of Special Kitty. It is one of 95 cat and dog food brands recalled by Menu Foods of Canada. Friday's recall came two weeks after nine cats died during routine company taste tests of its products, the Food and Drug Administration said.
Majerczyk said she took the 9-year-old cat to its first-ever veterinarian visit the day of the recall. The cat had lost six pounds in four days and was lethargic, dehydrated and nearly blind. She returned over the weekend to have him put down after his organs began to fail. Her suit, filed by Chicago attorney Jay Edelson, seeks class-action status.
"I want my vet bills and I want some compensation for what they did to my kids -- and for the company's neglect," Majerczyk, a medical assistant in a dermatology office.
The company said it had not seen the suit and had no comment. The FDA had no comment on the company's delay in announcing the recall.
The FDA so far has confirmed the deaths of 13 cats and one dog that had reportedly eaten the company's "cuts and gravy" style pet food. The wet food was sold throughout North America under store brands carried by Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway and other large retailers, as well as private labels like Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba.
FDA has sent inspectors to company plants in New Jersey and Kansas. Most complaints stem from products made at the latter factory, though both received shipments of wheat gluten, identified as a likely source of contamination, from the same supplier, said Stephen F. Sundlof, the FDA's chief veterinarian. The ingredient is a protein source used to thicken the pet food gravy. The FDA is screening pet food samples for substances known to be toxic to the kidneys, like toxins produced by molds.
A complete list of the recalled products along with product codes, descriptions and production dates was available from the Menu Foods Web site, http://www.menufoods.com/recall . The company also designated two phone numbers that pet owners could call for information -- (866) 463-6738 and (866) 895-2708.
FDA inspectors had never before visited the Kansas plant. The FDA warned the company following a 2004 inspection of its New Jersey factory after it failed to flag food made for zoo cats of the risk of mad cow disease if the product were fed to cattle.
Menu Foods is majority owned by Menu Foods Income Fund of Streetsville, Ontario.
I wonder if some of our resident lawyers would comment on the potential of suits like this one. I am under the impression that the courts attach far less value to the life of domestic animals than the lives of humans ... for a cat, maybe a few hundred bucks.
I know what you mean. My cats are my babies too. Luckily one of my cats ONLY eats dry food. The other cat eats moist and dry food and I got a little nervous because I bought a Wegmans brand cat food (for the first time!) for her. Wegmans has items on the recall list but sofar, the one I bought is NOT listed on there.
And the only reason I got the store brand was to save $0.11!!!
Now I know where John Edwards is going to get his next clients from.
I wonder if some nasty person put antifreeze in the food?
I wanted to get a puppy but the dogs or coyotes at the ranch would kill it, so I opted for my kitties.
Now, as far as that 18 year old Korean girl goes, you better be careful. Her bite might be worse than a dog or cat's bite would be. LOL
What the hell,,,they knew something in the food was killing the the animals they tested it on, and they still kept it on the market. They deserve to be sued big time.
Q: "If my pet was affected, can I sue?"
A: "Probably not. Under the law, pets are generally treated as property, and an owner can only request compensation to replace them, says Mary Randolph, author of Every Dog's Legal Guide (Nolo Press). While a few judges have assigned damages to owners whose animals were injured or killed, the cases are rare, and all were in lower courts, so they don't set precedents."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-19-qanda-food_N.htm
LOL! My family too -- needless to say, the same was true for our pets.
One of my cats, who passed a couple of years ago, was 17 and died in her sleep. I only took her to the vet once to get her spayed, and she was never sick a day in her life.
I worked in vet clinics for several years, and healthy animals can be exposed to possibly deadly illnesses simply by going for their well pet visits. I never take my pets in unless they actually are ill or injured... which is rare. (But I've been caring for animals my entire life, those with less experience should always rely on their veterinarians expertise.)
I take them for a checkup every couple of years, but I like to avoid the possible exposure that a vet clinic can bring.
End of the day its just lucky this contamination happened with Pet Food... imagine just for a moment, had this happened in human food..........
Well the damages in terms of direct loss I assume would be lower, IE vet bills, pain and suffering, etc... but you wait, this will become a class action suit with a large "PUNATIVE" phase that will make some lawyer very wealthy, and the average pet owner will all get checks for .32 each.
I agree with the lawsuit and will be joining it.
Let me say first and foremost that I take my cat to the vet once a year - whether she likes it or not and believe me she does NOT like it! :) I go to the vet every month to get her medicine. And there isn't anything I wouldn't do for her. I believe that when you take on an animal (cat, dog, rabbit, horse, whatever) you take it on for life and it is a family member. You give it shelter, food, medical care and LOTS of LOVE.
My cat has not died BUT I found out that she is in mild renal failure. And yes it is from the recalled food. Her food, Iams, was the food I checked the date and plant codes and my vet recorded the info. I also had a friend double check the numbers before I called the vet to make sure I was not just seeing things.
I am one of the lucky one, my cat did not die and is only in mild failure, so one might ask why sue? Well I asked the same question. But everyone that I have talked to has informed me that now I will be taking my cat for additional vet visits, testing and due to the vets recommendations will be feeding her prescription cat food due to the renal failure. So that is an added cost also. But like many pet owners will agree ... the money isn't the issue as long as the pet is okay. I am not rich by no means BUT I would make my cat do without something that was needed just because of money.
People need to understand that it is okay to do the right thing. And in this case it is the right thing to sue. I mean we didn't accidentally spill HOT coffee on ourselves and wonder why we got burnt. We bought the supposedly better food, Iams and hopes that we were giving out cat better nutrition ... and instead get poisoned. The worst part is they knew for TOO long before they went public with the knowledge. They MAY have been able to save some lives or in my case any damage to the animals.
Thanks for reading.
You also would not have the law on your side, ref. previous "property" law regarding pets, and may need to prove that the renal failure was caused by the batch of food, not just that you have some on hand.
I would bet that the whole thing will be settled by some lawyers getting a chunk of money and pet owners getting some type of rebate or discount coupons. I would also wager that additional pets will be killed intentionally by people trying to cash in on this.
Did to her kids??!!! Did her kids eat the food? I don't think this has anything to do with the law. What would she have told her kids if the cat had died due to some progressive but treatable disease because she never took him to the vet?
She neglected the kitty's health for 9 years and now that he is dead he has become oh-so-important to her. If there are rabies immunization laws in her town she was certainly in violation of those. Should the town sue her for back immunization fees?
I'm not buying it. How is she going to prove the cat didn't have a pre-existing kidney condition if she never took him to the vet? We have only her word the cat was healthy.
She probably sees big fat dollar signs since major manufacturers of pet food are involved but it's a long way from the court room to her pocket.
Did to her kids??!!! Did her kids eat the food? I don't think this has anything to do with the law. What would she have told her kids if the cat had died due to some progressive but treatable disease because she never took him to the vet?
She neglected the kitty's health for 9 years and now that he is dead he has become oh-so-important to her. If there are rabies immunization laws in her town she was certainly in violation of those. Should the town sue her for back immunization fees?
I'm not buying it. How is she going to prove the cat didn't have a pre-existing kidney condition if she never took him to the vet? We have only her word the cat was healthy.
She probably sees big fat dollar signs since major manufacturers of pet food are involved but it's a long way from the court room to her pocket.
I hope she wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.