Pet Food Express suing supplier over dog deaths

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Apr 6, 2007 | by Paul T. Rosynsky

OAKLAND -- As the nationwide pet food scare continues, the details of a similar Bay Area scare in the fall of 2003 will be revealed in court next week.

Pet Food Express, an independent chain with 31 stores in the Bay Area, is suing the manufacturer of the Go! Natural brand of pet food, which the retailer believes caused the deaths of at least 20 dogs more than three years ago.

Similar to the fears now being felt by consumers who fed their pets Menu Foods-produced pet food, the case in 2003 scared owners who had fed their animals dry kibbles under the Go! Natural brand.

Considered a healthy alternative to mainstream pet food, Go! Natural was sold exclusively in the Bay Area by Pet Food Express because of its supposed healthful attributes.

Store representatives pushed the brand to customers, and as a result the chain sold 80 percent of all Go! Natural food purchased in the United States.

"Pet Food Express tries to differentiate itself from its competition with a much higher level of customer service. As part of that, they like to find high-quality products to recommend," said John Moore, an attorney representing the chain. "If they had a high- quality product that they felt good about, it helps to have an exclusive arrangement to sell it."

But soon after the food's manufacturer, Petcurean, contracted out production of the Go! Natural brand to another firm, Merrick Petfoods, dogs and cats eating the kibbles began falling ill with liver problems.

As the complaints started piling in, Petcurean agreed to a voluntary recall of the Go! Natural brand that was sold in 4-, 8-, 12- and 30-pound bags.

At the same time, Pet Food Express began offering rebates without proof of purchase and paid for veterinary bills for many of its customers whose pets had fallen ill.

The only problem, however, is a lack of unquestionable proof that the food caused the deaths and illnesses.

A federal Food and Drug Administration study conducted soon after the scare was reported found that "a definitive cause of the ill effects of the dogs and cats has not been determined."

Studies by the government did not find anything in the food that was above regulations or abnormal.

However, it did find the presence of BHA, a preservative that is allowed in pet food but one that Petcurean had not listed as an ingredient.

Although the FDA found higher than acceptable levels of BHA in some samples, scientists there could not say that it was the cause of deaths.

Nevertheless, pet owners filed a class-action lawsuit against Petcurean and Pet Food Express, which was thrown out of court.

Both companies later settled individual claims.

Now Pet Food Express wants retribution.

The company is seeking $700,000 to cover the costs associated with the refunds it gave to customers and the veterinarian bills it paid.

Pet Food Express also is seeking millions of dollars in lost profits that it believes occurred when customers associated the company with selling questionable products.

"Pet Food Express really set a high standard on how to help customers when its food goes bad," Moore said. "Petcurean left us holding the bag and didn't offer any help to us."

Petcurean didn't offer any help because its food is not the cause of the deaths, the company's attorney Duane Musfelt said.

"After many years of testing the food and review by some of the country's top toxicologists and the food and drug administration, nothing has been found wrong with the pet food," he said. "The case that goes to trial next week does not involve any claims of any pet owners but involves a business dispute that involves a pet food that was sold many years ago."