The legal complaint, filed in Kansas on February 6, 2024, is 124 pages of compelling evidence against Hill’s Pet Food, Morris Animal Foundation, Mark Morris Institute, Dr. Lisa Freeman, Dr. Joshua Stern, Dr. Darcy Adin and others are said to be all involved in “a horrific, extensive, and damaging campaign of coordinated, for-profit, fake scientific disinformation by a large corporation” to lead veterinarians and pet owners to believe (wrongly – according to the lawsuit) that grain-free pet foods are dangerous, linked to dog heart disease.
“Using the tools of professional science and Hill’s extensive network of veterinary influence, the method’s goal is to convince American pet owners that grain-free foods are not just a “fad diet” but Actually. dangerous for dogs—an argument that, if successful, has the potential to wipe out the entire grain-free sector of the pet food market. They have been carrying out this extensive plan ever since and it is, by any measure, a stunning (if illegal) success.”
The complaint in the case introduces the case with this information:
“Hill’s is unique among the three so-called “traditional” pet food companies for three different reasons. First, it’s the smallest of the three—its annual revenues are smaller than most other pet food brands, but they’re only about 20% of Purina’s revenues. Second, as the nation’s largest manufacturer of “prescription-only” diets and as the self-proclaimed “#1 Vet Recommended Brand,” Hill’s is closer to the veterinary community than Mars or Purina. For Mars and Purina, marketing to veterinarians and distribution through veterinary clinics are both relatively insignificant parts of their vast company; for the Hill’s, they are a core part of the business.“
“The third thing that makes Hill unique among the three “traditional” pet food companies is its poor financial performance in the years before 2018, when the misconduct at the center of this suit began. Nowadays, the market for pet foods made by “non-traditional,” often independent, brands is growing exponentially. For example, from 2011 to 2017, sales of “grain-free” dog food, a leading category among independent manufacturers, increased from 15% to 44% of all dog food sales in American pet specialty stores. Purina is so big and diversified that it successfully weathered this storm, growing steadily and maintaining its market share from 2014 to 2017. But Hill’s didn’t. During the same four-year period, Hill’s annual revenue was pancake-flat and its market share fell by more than 20%. Long the third-largest seller of complete-diet dog food in the country, Hill’s slipped to fourth in 2018, after being overtaken by Blue Buffalo, the biggest of the new wave of “non-traditional” pet food brands.”
“Therefore, beginning no later than 2018, the Hill’s and a cluster of related entities and individuals (including the Hill’s, the “Defendants”) embarked on a violent and unlawful course to reverse the slide that this. They have devised a scheme to mislead American dog owners that a huge, unrelated, and vastly different group of dog food products—basically, any product made by any of the hundreds of independent companies that collectively destroying Hill’s market share—all increase the risk and severity of a fatal canine heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy (“DCM”).”
“To carry out the scheme, Hill’s, along with a group of closely-knit academic veterinarians (the “Veterinary Defenses”) and front organizations acting on Hill’s behalf, acted in a concerted conspiracy. “
“First and most explosively, the Veterinarian Defendants fraudulently induced the United States Food and Drug Administration to launch a high-profile investigation into DCM.”
“The second strand of Defendants’ scheme: Hill’s co-conspirators, the Veterinarian Defendants authored study after study about DCM and then falsified the findings.”
“The Defendants also created and maintained social media environments including at least one Facebook group that was an echo chamber, preventing any contradiction of the propaganda campaign.”
And then this lawsuit goes on to provide detail after detail of how the Defendants allegedly made the whole grain-free pet food link to the canine heart disease scheme.
Just like “Part One: The Cherry-Picking Scheme
(Defendants Fraudulently Encouraged FDA to Launch High-Profile Investigation into Grain-Free Diets and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy)“
Quoted: “Interestingly, 23 of the 28 dog cases in this report, or more than 80%, came from either Dr. Freeman or Dr. Adin. Only five came from sources other than these Defendants, in a country of 70 million dog owners.”
“Dr. Freeman and Dr. Adin deliberately selected a non-representative group of cases to present the FDA. They did this by “cherry-picking” DCM cases involving grainfree diets and submitting those to the FDA while simultaneously suppressing cases involving grain-containing diets.”
The lawsuit includes this image of an email from Dr. Freeman to the FDA regarding his “protocol” for submitting DCM cases to the FDA (note the second bullet point under item 2):
The lawsuit continues (bold added): “In other words, under the protocol established by Dr. Freeman, an FDA report should only be submitted if a DCM-positive dog does not eat one of the major products made by either Hill’s or one of the two other largest and best established manufacturers in the country. Freeman’s own protocol established that he selected his sample in such a way as to create the impression of a connection between smaller brand products and DCM, grain-free or not.
The above is only a small part of a very detailed lawsuit. It includes a wealth of information that corroborates many of those involved – and why they were involved – in the alleged scheme. It includes damning information about Hill’s influence on veterinary schools, information on similar attacks by Dr. Freeman’s raw pet food, and many others.
To read the full complaint, Press here.
The lawsuit is a class action, but the only plaintiff named is Ketonatural Pet Foods, Inc. The lawsuit seeks “lost revenue, reputational damage, and other economic damage in an amount over $2 billion (exact value that can be verified by testing).”
Personal opinion: This case took the courage to file; Filing any lawsuit against the Big Pet Feed giants is not a simple matter. This lawsuit gives us hope that manufacturers and veterinary scientists will – in the future – ‘think twice’ before participating in potential methods to deceive the public. Hidden secrets CAN become public knowledge when determined individuals have the courage and patience to keep digging for evidence. Kudos to Ketonatural Pet Foods for their determination. We will continue to monitor this lawsuit closely.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Buyer Beware of Author, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. The Association for Truth in Pet Food is a stakeholder organization that represents the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and the FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and raise consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Does your dog or cat eat dangerous substances? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells ‘the rest of the story’ on more than 5,000 cat foods, dog foods and pet foods. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview the Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2024 List
List of Susan’s trusted pet foods. Click here to learn more.
The 2023 Treat List
Susan’s List of trusted pet treat manufacturers. Click here to learn more.
