# update on blue buffalo lawsuit



## Melfice (Aug 4, 2012)

When I first got Rusty as a young 8 week pup. I bought a bag of Blue Buffalo Large Puppy food, but Rusty did not eat it. He must had not liked the taste, and I switched to Fromm Large Puppy food instead. 

Rusty did great on Fromm, and the reason why I'm telling this story, is because I trusted Blue Buffalo as a brand and I thought it was a good food at the time. Well I'll never buy any of their products again. 

You never lie to your customers, and trust is a hard thing to earn back in my eyes. Blue Buffalo is not taking responsibility for their actions, and that makes it even worse in my eyes.

Oh well, I was never a big customer of Blue Buffalo in the first place, but I did buy some of their wet foods from time-to-time.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

I wonder what the consumers who claimed their dogs did great on BB have to say about it? If their dogs truly did well on the formula, they might as well switch to one of the lower cost grocery store brands with poultry by products and save some money.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

msdogs1976 said:


> I wonder what the consumers who claimed their dogs did great on BB have to say about it? If their dogs truly did well on the formula, they might as well switch to one of the lower cost grocery store brands with poultry by products and save some money.


Actually my dogs have done wonderful on Blue Buffalo. I did switch to Dr Tims for the dry food because of the rumors of BB selling out. My puppy came home on the Purina Pro plan puppy formula. Neither of my two other dogs liked it. One smelled it and did not even touch it and the other one reluctantly ate it (and Darcy is know to eat ANYTHING) after couple smells. I am still including the BB canned food in their diet as a protein change (I rotate a can of salmon, beef, lamb mixed with the dry food). I can switch the canned food quicker than the dry food. 

And if this turns to be another Purina vendetta and BB stays in business I may switch back to them or keep the current diet as it is. All the treats and dental chews are BB made.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Maybe Purina needs to take a look in their own garden before they look in someone else's garden. They have had more recalls than any other company.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Pro Plan has never been recalled. In fact, Purina has had very few recalls. Because they produce their own foods, rather than outsource, their quality control is among the best.
This wasn't intended to start another dog food war thread, just an update on the lawsuit. The bottom line is still that you should feed whatever your dog does well on. But if a company is putting chicken byproducts in their food (a perfectly legitimate food for dogs, btw), they shouldn't advertise that they are not. It's really about deceptive advertising, not about the food quality.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

But Purina does not only make Pro Plan.

Nestle Purina Commits ‘Significant Violations’ at Pet Food Canning Plant | The Dogington Post

"Based on the FDA’s findings, the violations occurring at the pet food giant’s Allentown, Pennsylvania plant may result in cans of pet food that have been adulterated “in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.” "

Purina Sued for Allegedly Killing Thousands of Dogs With ‘Toxic’ Food - The Daily Beast


Not a food war just simply stating that the one that throws the stones should be sinless. 

I do not buy the Purina; nor will I ever buy regardless of the quality. The bigger and bullier the company the more I stay away from them. I prefer smaller companies and luckily there are plenty to choose from. But I look at Purina the same way I look at a big kennel (no way with 7+ dogs and puppies several times a year a breeder can care for their dogs properly). 

Maybe BB has gotten too big for their own good and lost control and oversight of their own suppliers.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Claudia, you and I both know we both do what we think is best for our dogs. I respect your opinions, even when they don't agree with mine. 
I think we are good enough friends to just agree to disagree.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The issue with Blue is the company isn't trustworthy. They advertise one thing and put something else in the bag they sell to the public. That is both unethical and illegal. I hope the Judge throws the book at them.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Barb, yes we can agree to disagree. You posted your opinion and I posted mine. It does not offend me in any way and I do not think any more or any less of you based on your opinion of Purina or BB. 
Someone asked for the opinion of the consumers who think highly of BB. I did and still do with some reservation. I was very upfront that I switched the dry food but still use the canned food. 
I am the POOP POLICE in my household. None of it has changed since I switched foods from BB to Dr Tim's. Belle's did change for the better when I switched from PPP to Dr Tim's. Her poop used to be so dry and hard her bottom was sore. I even took her to the vet thinking is was part of the intestine coming out. But each dog is different, I am assuming that her siblings who are still on PPP are doing just great. It just wasn't the food for Belle.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> The issue with Blue is the company isn't trustworthy. They advertise one thing and put something else in the bag they sell to the public. That is both unethical and illegal. I hope the Judge throws the book at them.


Everyone makes mistakes - to err is human. Plus the advertisements are done and purchased way ahead of time. 
Personally I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that indeed they were not aware of the suppliers' use of by-products; but I am very curious to see where things go from here. This may be the thing that will break them financially even though I have friends who have fed BB or switched to it and are completely set on continuing regardless of this situation. I tend to be a bit more cautious than that. 

A neighbor has switched his 9 yr old blind lab from PPP to BB and that dog looks and acts 3 years younger. And I am not exaggerating, my daughter walks that dog daily and we pet-sit every time they are out of town. There is nothing I could tell them to make them switch away from BB.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Max has been on BB for about 4 years.
He does well on it, no problems at all
I have no plans to change his food at this point


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> A neighbor has switched his 9 yr old blind lab from PPP to BB and that dog looks and acts 3 years younger. And I am not exaggerating, my daughter walks that dog daily and we pet-sit every time they are out of town. There is nothing I could tell them to make them switch away from BB.


That's fine. But the consumer should be able to feel confident that the ingredients listed on the bag is accuarate. I'm not a hater of chicken by products btw. The brand I buy clearly states it is included. My point is BB charges a high price for 'premium' ingredients and excluding the so called lower quality ones like chicken by products. I would be chapped if I had been over paying for an incorrect formula.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

msdogs1976 said:


> That's fine. But the consumer should be able to feel confident that the ingredients listed on the bag is accuarate. I'm not a hater of chicken by products btw. The brand I buy clearly states it is included. My point is BB charges a high price for 'premium' ingredients and excluding the so called lower quality ones like chicken by products. I would be chapped if I had been over paying for an incorrect formula.


I guess it depends on ones definition of "high price". I went from $46 to $54 for a 24lbs bag to $50 to $69 for a 30 lbs bag. Not much difference.


As of right now I understand that BB did not know of the by-products from one supplier. So as of right now I do not think there is sufficient proof of intent in misleading the consumer. And the proof in the pudding is just that - *intent*.


----------



## SunnynSey (Jan 17, 2015)

Where there is smoke there is fire, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the tip of the iceberg for Blue in terms of misrepresentation of their products. I have always felt the cornerstone of their brand was their ad campaigns and marketing, not so much the actual food. Most of the dogs I have seen on it at the vet hospital were obese, had bad skin, and smelled bad. It got so bad that it became the least favorite food of our vets (and the vets I worked with weren't science diet pushers either). I am sure that there are dogs that do well on it, but keep in mind there are also dogs that do well on O'Roy too. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

SunnynSey said:


> *Where there is smoke there is fire*, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the tip of the iceberg for Blue in terms of misrepresentation of their products. I have always felt the cornerstone of their brand was their ad campaigns and marketing, not so much the actual food. *Most of the dogs I have seen on it at the vet hospital were obese, had bad skin, and smelled bad.* It got so bad that it became the least favorite food of our vets (and the vets I worked with weren't science diet pushers either). I am sure that there are dogs that do well on it, but keep in mind there are also dogs that do well on O'Roy too. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


OMG - then Purina should have been out of business a LONG time ago. 

I am really mesmerized at the negative postings on BB by non-BB consumers. It is almost as if they somehow wish for BB to go out of business. 
Blue Buffalo to sue supplier of mislabeled ingredient - Washington DC Cat Health | Examiner.com
Second bolded statement - to my knowledge a high protein diet is used to reduce weight and not to gain weight (ask any body builder). BB has been accused of being too high in proteins. LOL smelled bad? I have been amazed that with only two washes a year and almost every weekend swimming in yucky ponds my dogs have the most wonderful odor to them.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Many of the food manufacturers source their ingredients from the same supplier. That's how Nestle Purina knew that BB was not above board on this. Several food manufacturers had made this information public several years ago. BB chose to continue to the course stating one thing, then putting something else in the bag they were selling. Nestle Purina finally had enough and sued. 

I'm sure many smaller food manufacturers are happy because they couldn't afford to take BB to court.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> Many of the food manufacturers source their ingredients from the same supplier. That's how Nestle Purina knew that BB was not above board on this. Several food manufacturers had made this information public several years ago. BB chose to continue to the course stating one thing, then putting something else in the bag they were selling. Nestle Purina finally had enough and sued.
> 
> I'm sure many smaller food manufacturers are happy because they couldn't afford to take BB to court.


"Wilbur-Ellis has attributed the mislabeling to “poor record-keeping and operational processes” at the plant, but has maintained that the shipped ingredient met nutritional specifications."


Lots of speculation above! Does not look like it was so public information from this statement. Gosh I would have thought Purina must have had enough of all the claims that dogs died on Beneful! I still like their commercials though. Even though it was just released in April 2015 a couple months after the class action suit.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

I would put more weight into the accusations against BB if they were coming from consumers, and not from a competitor. 
Does that not strike anyone else as a bit odd? 
Are the people who feed their dogs BB suing? 
It seems not, although I may be wrong about this - please link any sources that say otherwise. 

Max smells fine, and he's a tad overweight, because he has thyroid issues and a mom who feeds too many treats (I'm working on that part). Okay, he's a bit stinky right now because it's bath time - I get stinky before a bath, too


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> I would put more weight into the accusations against BB if they were coming from consumers, and not from a competitor.
> Does that not strike anyone else as a bit odd?
> Are the people who feed their dogs BB suing?
> It seems not, although I may be wrong about this - please link any sources that say otherwise.
> ...



It doesn't really seem too odd to me. After all, BB's entire marketing campaign has been "We are better than the other guys because we don't use the same crap ingredients they use. Check your food on our website and see how much better ours is." If the truth is that they do, in fact, use the same crap ingredients as everyone else then they have used false advertising to not only sell their product but also to injure their competitors. Their commercials seem designed to make people feel guilty for feeding anything less than their product -- when in reality it turns out their product isn't really all that different at all from the competition.

That said, if your dog does well on the food and you don't see any reason to change, then do what works best for Max. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with chicken byproduct meal -- but personally, I would have a problem supporting a company that had misled me into believing I was buying a higher quality product than they are actually selling (if lack of chicken byproduct meal indicates quality -- which they have certainly claimed repeatedly over the past few years). But at the same time knowing how hard it can be to find the best food for a particular dog in some instances, I don't know what I would ultimately do in your position.

Julie and the boys


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

I've read enough of the dog food war threads on here to have done my own research and feed Max what he likes, and what doesn't hurt him, and what I can afford. 

I didn't buy BB because of their no chicken byproduct claims, or their "we're better than the other guys" ads, I buy it because it works for us.

And it must be working for others or they would be suing as well. 

Does Burger King sue McDonald's? Does Kohl's sue Walmart?


----------



## golfgal (Dec 31, 2013)

Here's a link to Canada's food labeling rules, I'm sure someone from the US can add to this.

General Principles - General Principles for Labelling and Advertising - Food - Canadian Food Inspection Agency

If you mislabel something or falsely advertise that is generally not considered to be acting in good faith and violates the nature of the 'contract'. If someone bought something that was mislabeled and had an allergic reaction and died, lawsuits result. 

I don't have the expertise or knowledge to verify what's in my dog's food. Therefore I rely on the label of the company making it. If I'm trying to avoid rice and potatoes, then they better be on the label so I know to bypass that brand. It's not about whether the food is good or not, it's about their procedures and policies. 

If other companies without their resources test a sample of every ingredient before it goes into a batch of food, BB has to have the resources to do the same. It's part of being able to track down a bad batch of food. 

Blaming the supplier and saying I didn't know is a poor excuse. _*"Ignorantia juris non excusat*_ or _*ignorantia legis neminem excusat*_ (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content"


----------



## Test-ok (Jan 15, 2015)

laprincessa said:


> And it must be working for others or they would be suing as well.
> 
> Does Burger King sue McDonald's? Does Kohl's sue Walmart?


I agree, if only dogs could talk.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> Does Burger King sue McDonald's? Does Kohl's sue Walmart?



If McDonalds centered their entire advertising campaign around saying "Those other fast food restaurants use chicken made up of pink goo but we only use natural chicken," and Burger King gained knowledge that McDonalds did, in fact, have pink goo in their chicken (you've seen the memes on Facebook -- I have no idea what the deal with the pink goo is or isn't, just the first thing that came to mind) then Burger King would likely sue McDonalds.

If Walmart's commercials all said "Those other box stores import all of their goods from China where they use lead paint and toxic chemicals but we never do," and Kohl's gained knowledge that a "substantial and material" portion of Walmart's inventory was, in fact, from China then Kohl's would likely sue Walmart.

This isn't about jealousy because one company is more successful than another or greed because another company is cutting into the other's market share. As someone said above, it's not even about whether BB is a good food or not. It's about the company's integrity, it's about truth in advertising, and it's about the consumer's right to know exactly what they are buying with their hard earned money. The fact that so many people are attacking the messenger (Purina) while excusing the misbehavior of BB is downright strange to me. 

Speaking of that, for every story about how one dog or another didn't do well on Purina there's a story to match about a dog who didn't do well on Blue. Those stories prove nothing and aren't relevant to the point -- except in a case where these undisclosed ingredients from Blue were the cause of the issue: as with a dog who needs to avoid chicken due to allergy but unknowingly consumed poultry byproduct meal on a food not appropriately labeled. I don't know if there are any stories like that or not but outside of that type of scenario it's all just anecdote and individual differences between dogs.

Julie and the boys


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Reminds me of the Tom Brady/Patriots debacle. Whether or not the deflated footballs altered the outcome of the game is beside the point....the fact that the conduct was not that which is expected to be upheld by members of the NFL is the point.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

The reason I have a problem with purina bringing this lawsuit -and kind if acting all high and mighty themselves - is this : Purina makes Beneful! Have you seen those commercials? It just strikes me as pot calling kettle black.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> The reason I have a problem with purina bringing this lawsuit -and kind if acting all high and mighty themselves - is this : Purina makes Beneful! Have you seen those commercials? It just strikes me as pot calling kettle black.



Do the Beneful commercials misrepresent the ingredients in food by promising a particular ingredient is/is not present when it's a lie? Beneful is crap and there have been multiple multiple problems with quality control (from my limited knowledge on the subject) but I'm not sure that's the same issue as purposely misleading consumers about what is in the product. It's a problem, a major one, but it has no bearing on this particular situation with Blue. Also, BB isn't without fault in harming dogs due to poor quality control -- apparently back in 2010 there were major issues with dogs becoming very ill from an overdose of Vitamin D due to their own carelessness. Blue's response was slow and, not surprisingly, centered on blaming their suppliers rather than acknowledging their failure.

I was doing a little reading (I've been sitting at the shop having my car worked on FOREVER this morning and am bored to tears). You asked earlier why consumers weren't suing BB if this was a problem, somewhat implying that Purina was doing so more for their own gain than to address a real problem. Turns out, Purina isn't nearly the only one suing Blue Buffalo. Here is a list of lawsuits brought against BB in regards to this issue -- I believe most, if not all, of them are class action lawsuits. 

Fisher et al v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. et al, Case No. 14-cv-5937, C. D. CA.
Teperson et al v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd et al, Case No. 14-cv-1682, S. D. CA.
Delre et al v. Blue Buffalo Co., Ltd, Case No. 14-cv-768, D. CT.
Renna et al v. Blue Buffalo Co., Ltd., Case No. 14-cv-833, D. CT.
Mackenzie et al v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Inc., Case No. 14-cv-80634, S. D. FL.
Stone et al v. Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Case No. 14-cv-520, S. D. IL.
Keil et al v. Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Case No. 14-cv-880, E. D. MO.
Hutchison et al v. Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Case No. 14-cv-1070, E. D. MO.
Andacky et al v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Case No. 14-cv-2938, E. D. NY.


All of the lawsuits have apparently been consolidated together -- also including the Purina suit (I believe). There's more information in these articles:

http://www.poisonedpets.com/blue-bu...suits-based-on-deceptive-advertising-claims/  (I got the list here)
http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-...lue-buffalo-class-actions-consolidated-missou

I guess my point is that I don't see why so much of the discussion is centered around who brought the lawsuit rather than the revelation in court that BB has been lying. Purina didn't slip the poultry byproduct meal into BB's food, they merely pointed out that it was there. But, if it helps, here is proof that others have stepped up to sue as well.

Julie and the boys

Edited to add: oops, little language issue with that first link. For what it's worth, the title contains the only curse word in the article. If you'd like to check it out (since that is where I found the list of lawsuits) just copy/paste into browser and substitute a "bad word" for poop for the ****.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> Purina makes Beneful! Have you seen those commercials? It just strikes me as pot calling kettle black.


So What!

Purina makes over 3500 different formula's of animal feed. Because you don't like one of the formulas, the other 3499 are all bad too?

The reason Purina brought the suit and another company like Fromm didn't is Purina has deep enough pockets to hire the Lawyers and investigators and follow through to the end. The smaller manufacturers couldn't afford to go through the legal process start to finish.

Why is this concept so hard for for some people to understand? This suit is about MONEY. You the consumer are paying for a product that you're not getting. If I was paying $100 - $150 more per year than I should have I would be pretty ticked off.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Maybe a lot of us feel that we'll take poultry by products over anti-freeze any day.

And that's my last thought.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

laprincessa said:


> The reason I have a problem with purina bringing this lawsuit -and kind if acting all high and mighty themselves - is this : Purina makes Beneful! Have you seen those commercials? It just strikes me as pot calling kettle black.


I don't like Beneful at all, but they aren't falsely advertising what is in their food. BB clearly states that there is no chicken by-product meal in their food in their commercials, which we now know to be completely untrue. Beneful certainly has those 'healthy veggies/whatever' but they aren't anywhere near the top of the ingredient list, I'll bet (haven't looked, myself). But I will bet they are on that ingredient list somewhere (if that isn't the case, then you could say false advertising). 
Unfortunately, Beneful does have those 'great' commercials that people get sucked into. Don't like it, always suggest people switch off that food, but hey, it is advertising... what can you do?


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> Maybe a lot of us feel that we'll take poultry by products over anti-freeze any day.
> 
> And that's my last thought.



You said you're done and I respect that -- but for others reading this thread I think it's important to clarify what you said here:
When most people think of antifreeze, they think of ethylene glycol (EG) as it is the most common active ingredient in commercial antifreeze products. EG is highly toxic in small doses and is generally the ingredient responsible for killing dogs who stumble across a small puddle of antifreeze, which they are drawn to consume by its sweet odor and taste. EG is not used as a preservative in any dog food on the market.
Propylene glycol (PG) is a preservative commonly used in dog foods, including Beneful. Although a few brands have started to market antifreeze made from PG as a safer alternative, there are relatively very few manufacturers who are doing so. PG is commonly found in many human foods including (but not limited to): margarine, soda, cake mixes, ice cream, icing, flavored coffee, ranch dressing, and barbecue sauce. It can be toxic in very high doses but what is put in to food (human or canine) is well below the accepted level for consumption. Were pets harmed by Beneful because the process broke down and too much was added to the food (similar to BB's problem in 2010 with Vitamin D) - I guess it's possible but most of the reliable information I see about lawsuits against Purina/Beneful do not suggest this. They generally discuss things like aflatoxins and mycotoxins though, to date, I can't tell that anything has been definitively proven. 

The truth will come out sooner or later, as it did with BB, I am sure - but I don't know enough about the situation to guess what that truth may turn out to be. If they did something wrong, they will answer for it. Again, that has nothing to do with the current situation concerning BB.

Julie and the boys


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

I feed 4Healt to Moose and Sophie. I use to feed Taste of the Wilde, but our Medicare supplement and drug coverage took up 75% or that little social security pay raise we got, and our cable/phone/internet, and property insurance took up more than the remaining 25%. So we switched. I do make a turkey tew for them and pumpkin treats, neither cheap.

I know-nothing about Blue Buffalo other than when I joined my first dog foam almost 12 years ago food snobs were pushing it so hard they were calling anyone who did feed it idiots and we were killing our dogs.

As to Purina, my dad fed it to our quai hunters ad they stayed in top codition and lived log lives on the Purina Dog Chow. I I also fed it for 35 years. My dogs had beautiful coats, did not stink. 

I say feed what you are comfortable with and what works for your dog.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> So What!
> 
> Purina makes over 3500 different formula's of animal feed. Because you don't like one of the formulas, the other 3499 are all bad too?
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHA - Thank you! So it all comes down to MONEY and DEEP POCKETS and people who like deep pockets. 
Amazing how some would be upset about $100 a year but ticked off at questioning a $2,000 dog price tag.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Oh goodness.... It's not like any dog food manufacturer has altruistic motives. They are businesses! It's always about profit! Many of them owned by publicly traded companies so they have duties to their shareholders. But here's the issue, regardless of one's opinions on purina it's still not ok to lead a deceptive marketing campaign and mislabel products. If purina were being accused of this my statement would be the same. I don't know how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Oh goodness.... It's not like any dog food manufacturer has altruistic motives. They are businesses! It's always about profit! Many of them owned by publicly traded companies so they have duties to their shareholders. But here's the issue, regardless of one's opinions on purina it's still not ok to lead a deceptive marketing campaign and mislabel products. If purina were being accused of this my statement would be the same. I don't know how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.


Of course it is about profit and Purina is ALL about profit with this law suit. Not enough people have fallen for the cheap crap produced in dirty facilities they sell and advertise constantly at every dog event, on every dog website (this included) and on TV. LOL I am glad they caught the guy who was hooked on their dog milkbone and stole $30,000 worth of them. After all it is all about money. 

Purina Employee Arrested for Stealing and Eating Over 30,000$ of Dog Biscuits World News Daily Report

They had the cameras for that but did not have the cameras to see how dirty the facility was???


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm not sure what that has to do with the allegations against Blue Buffalo...??? Was Blue Buffalo advertising so they WOULDN'T sell dog food? Of course not. They were advertising to sell dog food and make money. Like every other for-profit company. 

I get the sense that this disagreement is more about arguing for the sake of arguing....


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm not sure what that has to do with the allegations against Blue Buffalo...??? Was Blue Buffalo advertising so they WOULDN'T sell dog food? Of course not. They were advertising to sell dog food and make money. Like every other for-profit company.
> 
> I get the sense that this disagreement is more about arguing for the sake of arguing....


It is about who started the lawsuit and also the fact that the ones so happy about the lawsuit and still very indignant about people who paid $100 more a year in dog food (not themselves mind you) neglected to mention the fact that once the byproducts have been discovered BB stopped dealing with that supplier. 
BB has put an order with this company, the company did not fulfill the order as per their instructions (which they blamed on missed paperwork) and therefore the byproduct was included in the meals. In May 2014 they stopped using this company. 

Unless you can provide proof that BB knew about the byproduct and intentionally included it in the food while advertising no byproduct this whole discussion is nothing but smearing and promoting "deep pockets".


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> It is about who started the lawsuit and also the fact that the ones so happy about the lawsuit and still very indignant about people who paid $100 more a year in dog food (not themselves mind you) neglected to mention the fact that once the byproducts have been discovered BB stopped dealing with that supplier.
> 
> BB has put an order with this company, the company did not fulfill the order as per their instructions (which they blamed on missed paperwork) and therefore the byproduct was included in the meals. In May 2014 they stopped using this company.
> 
> ...



Well I'm not personally involved in the lawsuit. Neither, I suspect, are you. So speaking conclusively about facts is difficult unless you have actual personal knowledge of those facts. Do you work for BB? Did I miss something? 

Personally when consumers are misled, I'm always going to be happy that the truth is brought to light. I'm not sure why anyone would feel otherwise. Again, unless one has a personal stake in this I don't know how one could reasonably argue otherwise. Unless one is arguing for the sake of arguing. And with that I will bow out of this, as it is becoming circular and non productive.


----------



## Tennyson (Mar 26, 2011)

Blue Buffalo to pay 32 million to settle pet food lawsuits.
This is not the Purina lawsuit. That comes next.
Blue Buffalo agrees to pay $32 million to settle pet food lawsuits | Examiner.com


----------

