…and now Purina is Sued by Blue Buffalo….Reminds us of the FDA

Dog Fight Over Product Ingredients Heads to Federal Court

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dog-fight-product-ingredients-heads-federal-court/story?id=23769501#disqus_thread

NAD Refers Blue Buffalo’s Advertising to Federal Trade Commission
 (Notice this NAD article is from 2009)   http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/05/11/nad-refers-blue-buffalos-advertising-to-federal-trade-commission.aspx

Posted: Monday, May 11, 2009, 4:33 p.m., EDT

Blue Buffalo The advertising industry’s self-regulatory entity has referred advertising for Blue Buffalo Co.’s Blue brand of pet food to the Federal Trade Commission for review.

The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD) claims the Wilton, Conn.-based manufacturer has declined to modify or discontinue its “no animal by-products” advertising claims. Blue Buffalo maintains that it has altered its advertising, but not its packaging, which the company claims NAD does not have authority over.

NAD reviewed advertising for the Blue line of pet food in July 2008 following a challenge by competing pet-food manufacturer Hill’s Pet Nutrition. NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo discontinue its “no animal by-products” claims when made in reference to pet foods containing fish meal, lamb meal and/or liver.

NAD noted that Blue Buffalo pet foods are made with liver, fish meal and lamb meal. Although Blue Buffalo did not disclose the composition of its fish and lamb meal, “the relevant regulatory guidelines make clear that these meals can include kidneys, intestines, eyeballs, brains and other viscera,” according to NAD. NAD found consumers would “expect that a food with ‘no animal by-products’ [would] not contain such ingredients.”

Blue Buffalo President Bill Bishop said Blue Buffalo’s use of the term “by-product” is fully consistent with the Association of American Feed Control Officials’ (AAFCO) definition. He said the company has modified its advertising claims in magazines and on the web to note that Blue Buffalo is referring to the AAFCO’s definition of “by-product.” However, he said, the NAD does not have authority to make the company alter its packaging.

“The industry had never looked at NAD as a packaging review board,” he said.

Bishop said it’s the company intention to make it an “industry issue” as to whether NAD can enforce packaging changes. He said the company would want to include other natural and holistic brands in the discussion.

————————————-

PD comments:

Whoever owns the Blue brand is going for an IPO to make it public. Purina’s lawsuit didn’t sit so well with Blue, since that would likely affect perception of the brand. We looked up http://www.consumeraffairs.com and found quite a few dogs did not do so well on the Blue brand (since they rated it and complained) however it is selling well on the market, but people are not sure just where the manufacturing is done and we don’t know either.

…with Blue Buffalo claiming they don’t add use or add whatever Purina claims they added?  First Purina sued Blue, then Blue sued Purina…………..

Then Blue says (in lawsuit) —  that Purina “advertised”  about  Blue because Purina put it on websites and online. Hmm that’s interesting but if there really is something that is claimed NOT to be IN the food, which is actually IN the food of the Blue brand, we think that’s false advertising by Blue…  IF in fact there never was any of whatever in the food, how would they prove it except for by having testing done independently— way before the case started?

And if you have a truly American product, we think that if you’re going to make it that expensive, then at least manufacture it here in the USA and force your customers to pay more, after all, it’s about as AR as you can get to tell the world via commercials, that your pet will only consume the best as your family?  Further, the Blue brand states that “we don’t own” dogs and cats, they label pets as “companions” (an AR term instead of pet or animal) and then they go further, stating the word “whom” (not which) when referring to animals, i.e. “whom we love and respect” where whom is normally used for humans, and “which” is used for most other things (property, entities, places, things,etc)

Hell, most families consume so much junk food, they watch so much junk TV crap, they engage in nonsensical Facebook and “like it”, following every single action of relentless entertainers, basing their lifestyle on countless TV ads, reaching for monetary possessions that simply reek of economic materialism, conspicuous consumption, and becoming addicted to vampire shows, sex related shows, and garbage in general— who really cares if someone doesn’t buy a food for dogs that cost $65 a BAG????  Does NOT buying $75 bagged food make you the ‘ bad pet owner?’  Apparently that’s the drift.

And where the Blue company was already told by the pet food industry or whomever, to stop making ads which denigrate other brands?  Where the “testing” is not necessarily the product, but is designed to implicate a result which is not necessarily proven? [See article from 2009 above]

Do we not see that the vegan lifestyle has been thrust upon the AR animal industry far and wide?  That people are not supposed to eat animal products, but only some animals are good enough to eat plant products and MEAT– but people should NOT?

We are not buying into the “must buy” meat products for dogs but people should not do so for themselves……..it smacks way too much of the vegan industry simply taking the consumers and screwing their brains up to make them think we will all just live longer if we follow them. REALLY?  Then why don’t they simply develop a pill to stop all the disease and quit selling other products?  Oh we forget–we already have that. FDA…Big pharma. Duh?

Advertisements