What is the lawsuit against ACANA
Lawsuit filed against Champion Pet Food Acana and Orijen
UPDATE:
Orijen/Acana Class Action Dismissed
By CDWA |Sentience| Legal | Updated August 6, 2020
In 2018, Champion Foods, the makers of Orijen and Acana, had a class action lawsuit levvied against them.
At issue was that their foods contain high levels of heavy metals, or BPAs, and did not provide warning labels on their products of this fact. The food packages also state that the food is biologically appropriate and appropriate as a daily diet which, if heavy metals were high and affecting health outcomes, is inappropriate labelling for these foods. The lawsuit contended that these were the issue.
Its not the first time that Champion Foods have faced a lawsuit. In May, 2017, the company released a white paper that stated, in part, We believe that describing heavy metals as contaminants in pet foods confuses pet lovers on the origin of these elements as well as their safety limits for dogs and cats.
Readthe lawsuit.
In 2018, Nestle Purina began negotiations for the purchase of Champion Foods, for $2billion (US).
In 2019, a Wisconsin judge dismissed the Plaintiffs claims with prejudice, finding that trace heavy metals and BPAs contained in the foods were naturally occurring and that there was no compelling evidence between the ingredients and dog illnesses.
As heavy metals can accumulate to non-therapeutic levels in human and animal organs, CDWA remains watchful of animal foods and health outcomes, and we remain in pursuit of the best information on appropriate diet and nutrition in dogs.
Currently, we advocate for a balanced diet, as prescribed by Veterinarians,but we note this as a subject requiring further research.
Consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida are suing Champion Pet Food for False Advertising, violations of feed law, and numerous other charges. The lawsuit includes results of heavy metal testing and includes results that this dry dog food contains BPA a chemical typically not associated with dry/kibble pet foods.
This is a Class Action lawsuit currently representing consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida. The consumers are suing Champion Pet Foodfor their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes (defined below), including requiring full disclosure of all such substances in its marketing, advertising, and labeling and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Classes.
The lawsuit claims Champion pet foods (Acana and Orijen)contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmiumknown to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogsand interestingly for a kibble pet foodthe lawsuit claims the dry pet food containedBISPHENOL A (BPA).
The lawsuit provided this chart of lab result findings in Acana and Orijen pet foods:
With the heavy metal results provided, the levels found in the Champion Pet Food appear be be below that what authorities recognize as a Maximum Tolerable Level of Minerals in Feed.
As example: the National Research Council (NRC) publication Mineral Tolerances for Animals 2005 are the guidelines that FDA enforces. Within this publication (which is a pay for publication, not free public access) the NRC provides a chart listing the maximum tolerable level for multiple species. Dogs and cats are not listed within the NRC chart. The closest species provided in the NRC publication is rodents.
For rodents, the maximum tolerable level of arsenic is: 30 mg/kg.
The highest level of arsenic found in the Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3256.40 mcg/kg (microgram per kilogram). Converting micrograms to milligrams, the highest level or arsenic found in Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3.2564 mg. Well below the NRC maximum tolerable level for rodents and we can assume dogs and cats.
That said, much of the NRC consulted science their maximum tolerable levels are established on were based on short term research. There was/is little consideration to cats and dogs that consume pet food with higher levels of heavy metals over a lifetime. The NRC Mineral Tolerances 2005 publication found that dogs fed2.3 and 4.6 mg per day per kilogram of body weightfor only183 daysexperienceddecreased weight gain and food intake;183 days is not a fair consideration to base pet health on when exposure could be years.
Lawyers will have to argue out the heavy metal content health risks cited in the lawsuit.
But what about the BPA found in the Champion pet foodskibble pet foods? Most pet food consumers understand that canned pet foods could contain BPAbut not dry/kibble pet foods.
The lawsuit statesDefendants market the Contaminated Dog Foods as Biologically Appropriate, using Fresh Regional Ingredients comprised of 100 percent meat, poultry, fish, and/or vegetables, both on the products packaging and on Defendants websites. Moreover, Defendants devote significant web and packaging space to the marketing of their DogStar Kitchens, which they tell consumers are the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth, with standards that rival the human food processing industry.
Where did the BPA come from if fresh regional ingredients are used and processed in the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth?
How much BPA was found in Champion Pet Foods as compared to canned pet food?
In 2002 a study Determination of bisphenol A in canned pet foods found BPA levels in dog foods tested from 11 to 206 ng/g.
Nanogram per gram (ng/g) results stated in this study is the same as microgram to kilogram (ug/kg) stated in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites testing of Orijen and Acana BPA levels from zero to 102.70 ug/kg. Not quite as high as results of canned pet food, but significantly high for what a kibble pet food would be expected to contain.
It will be very interesting to follow this lawsuit, to learn of future updates/arguments from both sides. As more is learned, it will be shared.
To read the full lawsuit,Click Here.
To contact the law firm,Click Here.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan ThixtonPet Food Safety AdvocateAuthor Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsibleTruthaboutPetFood.comAssociation for Truth in Pet Food
Lawsuit filed against Champion Pet Food Acana and Orijen
Consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida are suing Champion Pet Food for False Advertising, violations of feed law, and numerous other charges. The lawsuit includes results of heavy metal testing and includes results that this dry dog food contains BPA a chemical typically not associated with dry/kibble pet foods.
This is a Class Action lawsuit currently representing consumers in Minnesota, California and Florida. The consumers are suing Champion Pet Food for their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United States. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Classes (defined below), including requiring full disclosure of all such substances in its marketing, advertising, and labeling and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Classes.
The lawsuit claims Champion pet foods (Acana and Orijen) contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium known to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogs and interestingly for a kibble pet foodthe lawsuit claims the dry pet food contained BISPHENOL A (BPA).
The lawsuit provided this chart of lab result findings in Acana and Orijen pet foods:
With the heavy metal results provided, the levels found in the Champion Pet Food appear be be below that what authorities recognize as a Maximum Tolerable Level of Minerals in Feed.
As example: the National Research Council (NRC) publication Mineral Tolerances for Animals 2005 are the guidelines that FDA enforces. Within this publication (which is a pay for publication, not free public access) the NRC provides a chart listing the maximum tolerable level for multiple species. Dogs and cats are not listed within the NRC chart. The closest species provided in the NRC publication is rodents.
For rodents, the maximum tolerable level of arsenic is: 30 mg/kg.
The highest level of arsenic found in the Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3256.40 mcg/kg (microgram per kilogram). Converting micrograms to milligrams, the highest level or arsenic found in Acana and Orijen dog foods was 3.2564 mg. Well below the NRC maximum tolerable level for rodents and we can assume dogs and cats.
That said, much of the NRC consulted science their maximum tolerable levels are established on were based on short term research. There was/is little consideration to cats and dogs that consume pet food with higher levels of heavy metals over a lifetime. The NRC Mineral Tolerances 2005 publication found that dogs fed 2.3 and 4.6 mg per day per kilogram of body weight for only 183 days experienced decreased weight gain and food intake; 183 days is not a fair consideration to base pet health on when exposure could be years.
Lawyers will have to argue out the heavy metal content health risks cited in the lawsuit.
But what about the BPA found in the Champion pet foodskibble pet foods? Most pet food consumers understand that canned pet foods could contain BPAbut not dry/kibble pet foods.
The lawsuit states Defendants market the Contaminated Dog Foods as Biologically Appropriate, using Fresh Regional Ingredients comprised of 100 percent meat, poultry, fish, and/or vegetables, both on the products packaging and on Defendants websites. Moreover, Defendants devote significant web and packaging space to the marketing of their DogStar Kitchens, which they tell consumers are the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth, with standards that rival the human food processing industry.
Where did the BPA come from if fresh regional ingredients are used and processed in the most advanced pet food kitchens on earth?
How much BPA was found in Champion Pet Foods as compared to canned pet food?
In 2002 a study Determination of bisphenol A in canned pet foods found BPA levels in dog foods tested from 11 to 206 ng/g.
Nanogram per gram (ng/g) results stated in this study is the same as microgram to kilogram (ug/kg) stated in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites testing of Orijen and Acana BPA levels from zero to 102.70 ug/kg. Not quite as high as results of canned pet food, but significantly high for what a kibble pet food would be expected to contain.
It will be very interesting to follow this lawsuit, to learn of future updates/arguments from both sides. As more is learned, it will be shared.
To read the full lawsuit, Click Here.
To contact the law firm, Click Here.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan ThixtonPet Food Safety AdvocateAuthor Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsibleTruthaboutPetFood.comAssociation for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
Whats in Your Pets Food?Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the rest of the story on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2018 ListSusans List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Acana Dog Food Lawsuit Response
We recently heard about a legal case in which the leading brand of Acana dog food in the United States faced a legal suit challenging its effectiveness. There are many brands of dog food on the market and most of them have good quality. The brand in question, Acana, is produced by the Toy Company. It is one of the best brands available. According to the details of the lawsuit, the dog food contains fillers like wheat, corn, and soy which do not contribute to the nutritional value of the dogs diet, but are added in order to save time during the manufacturing process. The manufacturer, in turn, does not get any benefit from such ingredients.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the National Association of Home Breeders. The manufacturers claim that the Fillers are necessary to give the food its crunchy, consistent flavor. However, the courts have ruled against the manufacturers. In essence, the courts have stated that the manufacturers were only able to receive a passing score on their label based on the fact that the foods did not contain any ingredients which are required by law to be present on the label of dog food. This essentially means that the lawsuit has no merit.
For the legal group, this ruling is actually quite unfortunate. Because all dogs deserve to eat safe, wholesome food. In recent years, pet food recalls have led to severe contaminated pet food poisoning cases and many deaths. The courts have also ruled in favor of the dogs who have died as a direct result of tainted pet food.
The legal battle was ignited by a class-action lawsuit filed by the Pet Products Safety Commission (PPSC). The PPSC is an independent government agency. Their mission is to ensure the safety of Americas dogs. They received a complaint from Dr. Mercola, a veterinarian from Vermont. He was trying to post information about ingredients on his website without first getting the approval of the FDA. The FDA is not involved in the manufacturing of dog food.
Dr. Mercola included an ingredient called BHA in his website. BHA is a naturally occurring substance found in human skin. It is used in many common shampoos and conditioners because it is an effective preservative. However, the manufacture of dog food had not considered adding BHA as an ingredient, and therefore it was included in this product.
Because of this contamination, the company has decided to take legal action. While they admit that the manufacturing process went wrong, they also admit that since the BHA was in the dog food, the preservative was released into the dog food, as well. Therefore, they are looking to have this case settle out of court. Obviously, for this to happen, the plaintiffs attorney will have to negotiate a very large settlement.
