When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced at the end of 2022, in stealth mode, that it was ending formal and regular updates on investigations into grain-free pet foods and canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), I did not think. anyone who believes that this sordid legend is truly over. I didn’t, and commented that I hope that if anything good comes out of the mess of a situation, it is continued research into DCM and its many causes, because obviously, many dogs and their owners are greatly affected. . Not to mention many pet food brands, retailers and veterinarians.
I think it’s almost inevitable that, with more studies, we’ll eventually see lawsuits as well. Pet food has increasingly become a target for litigation, especially class-action lawsuits, and this situation seems ripe.
Thus, last week’s announcement of a US$2.6 billion lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2024, against Hill’s Pet Nutrition; its research foundations, the Morris Animal Foundation and Mark Morris Institute; and a group of veterinary researchers is not a surprise. But, like so many elements of DCM’s investigation, it left me puzzled and scratching my head.
DCM research factors
Class-action lawsuits often go after deep pockets, so it’s no surprise that Hill was the target of this one either; a division of the Colgate Palmolive conglomerate, Hill’s is the third largest pet food company in the world, according to the Petfood Industry Top Pet Food Companies Database.
But I’m not sure I understand why Hill’s was chosen. Not that I’m advocating or wanting other pet food companies to be sued, but the focus on Hill in this case — even named “KetoNatural Pet Foods vs. of reasons.
A press release from the law firm that filed the lawsuit reads: “The lawsuit alleges that the FDA’s investigation of DCM was fraudulently solicited by veterinarians affiliated with Hill at Tufts University and other major research institutions, all of whom received extensive funding from Hill-related entities. . The vets allegedly provoked the FDA’s drastic action by flooding the agency with hundreds of DCM case reports that were deliberately selected to overstate the prevalence of grain-free diets in dogs suffering from disease.
While that last sentence may have some element of truth, the truth is that the vets in question didn’t just work with Hill; most have also received funding from other pet food companies such as Nestle Purina and Royal Canin (a division of Mars). In fact, Purina funded a study at Tufts in 2021 on DCM and diet. At the same time, Hill’s has partnered with other entities besides veterinary researchers on DCM-related studies, including one on canine DNA that has nothing to do with dog food.
It is also worth noting that the funding of veterinary research studies by all three of the largest pet food companies is a function of the market and system, and not just because these companies develop and sell therapeutics. diet through the veterinary channel. It’s also because, like it or not, that’s about the only source of funding available for such research. In the US, there are no federal (and almost no state) sources of research funding for companion animal research. Academic researchers can sometimes apply for and receive grants, but most money for research comes from industry, either pet food manufacturers or suppliers.
Hill’s dog foods have been implicated in DCM complaints
Another reason why the exclusive focus on Hill does not remain is that it also manufactures and sells grain-free pet foods and was made before the DCM investigation began in 2018, like KetoNatural and similar companies who is said to have been harmed by the investigation. In fact, Hill’s products appeared on the list of complaints submitted to the FDA regarding DCM cases, even though it was not one of the most named brands announced by the agency in 2019 and is not necessarily well known in the grain-free marketplace. product strategy. It’s hard to believe that the company “panicked by making false statements about the scientific evidence surrounding DCM,” as the press release says, when its own products were implicated.
I am not so naive or idealistic that I believe that companies, especially large corporations, never engage in business malpractice for their own benefit, but it does not make sense that a company like Hill’s, one of the oldest and longest incumbent in the market, is risking its reputation and status by engaging in some of the conspiracy theory-type activities listed in the lawsuit.
The pet food market is big enough, dynamic enough and stable enough for all kinds of products and companies to succeed and thrive. To make it to market, a large company like Hill’s doesn’t have to use “a technique to falsely convince American dog owners that a huge, unrelated and vastly different group of dog food products — essentially any product made by any of the hundreds of independent companies that collectively erode Hill’s market share — all increase the risk and severity” of DCM, the lawsuit states. Nor should a massive class-action be filed who sued a small company with unique products like KetoNatural.
