Pet-food deaths: Are pets ‘family’ or ‘things’?

Do you like this story?

Pet-food deaths: Are pets ‘family’ or ‘things’?

By Gina Spadafori

June 5, 2007

Did you say “family”? Nope. Not to be too cynical about it, but for the most part, it often seems that pets are said to be “family “when someone’s trying to sell you something based on your love for the animal … and “things” when something goes wrong, such as when a contaminated pet food kills your pet. and you want monetary compensation.

A controversial New Jersey proposal is trying to change the rules of the game. Obviously, companies don’t like the prospect of perhaps having to pony up for “pain and suffering” over a pet’s death, but veterinary associations also argue that larger settlements will lead to higher veterinary costs, as malpractice insurance soars. (In this, they have a point. Look at the mess human medicine is in.)

In this morning’s Asbury Park Press (sorry, but I simply cannot read “Asbury Park” without thinking “Springsteen” — I guess it’s just my age), the author of the proposed legislation, N.J. state Assemblymember Neil M. Cohen, takes aim at the critics:

Contrary to the assertions in a recent editorial (“Another bone-headed bill,” May 23), my legislation to better protect pet owners against manufacturers of tainted pet food products was crafted for one purpose: protecting consumers.

The bill is sorely needed. Currently, state product liability laws fail to provide pet owners sufficient means to fight back if their pets are injured or killed due to ingestion of contaminated pet food. My legislation would provide a more level playing field for consumers against manufacturers of pet food products that turn out to be poisonous.

The bill is not an attempt at creating new product liability litigation opportunities for lawyers. Quite the contrary.

Realizing that the scope of the bill as introduced was too broad, we amended it in committee to remove a clause that would have allowed pet owners to sue for emotional pain and suffering. We added provisions that would place potential pet food contamination cases into binding arbitration, eliminating the need for juries to have to decide how much someone loved their pet while keeping money-hungry lawyers on a short leash, as binding arbitration offers lawyers very little in the way of financial compensation.

Moreover, veterinarians — who do not normally manufacture, produce, distribute or sell pet food — would be held harmless under this bill, which only targets pet food manufacturers or retailers who knowingly disregarded a pet food recall.

Pet food manufacturers need a stronger obligation to produce a safe product. And pet owners deserve to know they have a meaningful legal recourse should that not happen. Everyone expects the food they purchase at the store, be it for themselves or for their pet, to be safe to consume. Advocating any standard short of that is, well, just barking up the wrong tree.

Interesting … and I’m guessing we’ll see more such legislation proposed. What do you all think, pro and con?

Filed under: animals: pets — Gina Spadafori @ 2:51 pm

Comments (17)

17 Comments »

Good start!
I am in favor of mandatory jail time, seizure of assets and a fund to pay vet bills for victims.
Either make a quality product or don’t make it at all.

Comment by E. Hamilton — June 5, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Why does it have to be “families” OR “things”?

I’ve always thought we’ve needed a third classification for living animals - they’d still be our property (none of that “guardian” crap) but would not be treated legally as inanimate objects.

We SORT OF have that now with cruelty laws and such (after all, there are no penalties for cruelty to a toaster, for example!) but I think having some sort of intermediary classification for animals - still property - but a special CLASS of property - could really be useful.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I’m in complete and total agreement w/ Pat.. well said.

Comment by Gwen — June 5, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Interesting. Requires binding arbitration. Sounds like it goes farther to protect the manufacturers than pet guardians. Binding arbitration means you give up your right to a trial by jury, where someone might understand your position, perhaps another pet guardian, and instead a “judge” or licensed arbitrator decides if you’ve had a loss. Plus any vet, who ignored the signs of poisioning and sent the pet home with a bottle of tummy pills is protected as well. Hmmmm Not sure I see much for the pet lover or our furry friends there.

Comment by Sandy — June 5, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
I wrote my Florida state rep and senator, the house speaker and the gov, sent them all a copy of the NJ bill, and told them I want something similar introduced in the legislature here. Currently only Tennessee allows pet-owner/guardians (nothing negative about that term….)to sue for 5,000, and most states cap it at 500. The NJ bill caps out at 15,000. Twenty would be even better…that’s telling manufacturers “You harm or kill pets in this state, it will cost you.” The manuf’s will know those foods being sent into those states have to be ‘safe enough’ foods. If 12 or 15 of the largest states can pass such legislation, that’s half the nation’s pet population…If you’re in one those states, good for you and your pet/dog/cat/family member. If you’re not…don’t you want your state to join in also?

Comment by 'reader Mike' — June 5, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Pets have souls and their behavior is more innocent and altruistic than most human behavior. I’m againt capital punishment in almost all cases - one exception is abusing or killing the innocent souls of the earth, including pets.

Concerning binding arbitration: Binding arbitration is a common tool used by the rich and powerful to screw the poor and powerless. Binding arbitration is all too often another example of corporate tyranny.

Comment by MFEMFEM — June 5, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
RDOWS POSITION STATEMENT ON DOGS AS PROPERTY
http://www.povn.com/rdows

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States takes the position that dogs are
valuable property. Dogs are among the most ancient of property of human beings.
Before human beings settled to a plot of land, or threw a seed in the soil, they
were dog owners. Archaeological digs have found evidence of dog ownership
tracing back more than thirty-five thousand years to a time before the written
word. With writing came documentation of dog ownership, and use. Ancient texts
extolled the virtues of hunting, guarding, and herding dogs, all evidence of
their value as the property of human beings.

From the time of the domestication of dogs human beings have not only trained
dogs to be of intrinsic value for working along side us, human beings
selectively bred dogs to have physical attributes to better perform their
duties. Sight hounds, scent hounds, guard dogs, herding dogs, were among the
first to be selectively bred to serve mankind. Some of the earliest writings
dedicated to dogs was the preservation of the pedigree. A pedigree is a dog’s
lineage, it’s family tree. Before we human beings knew about genetics, it is
apparent from breeding records that selective breeding was understood. Selective
breeding has created dogs of every size, and form from a wolf-type progenitor.
Human beings would not have bothered if dogs were not valued property. The only
animals, other than cats, and horses that have been so selectively bred
following domestication were those that were used for food, or for clothing.

That we human beings have steadfastly held to dog ownership proves that dogs are
valuable property. The longer that human beings have owned dogs, the more
breeds were developed to serve in ever expanding capacities, so that in today’s
society dogs are trained to aid the hearing impaired, the sightless, those
persons with physical disabilities, as well as continuing to perform the most
ancient of duties, those of hunting, herding, guarding, and protecting human
beings and their possessions, and property.

Only in the most recent of times, and with the advent of the so-called animal
rights movement has there been an effort to define dogs as not property, but as
entities under the law. This movement has vowed to remove all animal ownership,
and use from society. In order to accomplish this end, animals, including dogs
must be given a status as legal entities over, and above property.
Historically, and legally dogs are, and must remain the rightful, valuable
property of human beings.

It is very important to understand exactly what the definition of property is
before agreeing to give it away. We tend to devalue the idea of property, as
“just property” thus showing our ignorance, and disregard for our precious
rights of ownership. Property is divided into two classes: real property such as
land, or real estate, and personal property meaning everything to which we own
title that is not land or real estate.

The ownership of property is one of our most precious rights granted under the
Constitution of the United States of America. It establishes we the people as
individuals with the freedom to control our own lives. The founding fathers of
this great land came from European kingdoms where all of the people, and all of
the land, and all of the animals, and all of the goods belonged to the monarchy.
They understood that ownership is freedom. The right of property ownership is
given an important place in our enumerated freedoms.

Ownership, and possession of property are two different things under the law.
Ownership gives the title holder the right to retain, and to enjoy your
property to the exclusion of all others. Possession is the right to temporary
custody and does not necessarily include the right to title. For example a
renter of an apartment, or garage, or the lessee of a dog or a bitch for
breeding purposes has temporary possession without ownership. The landlord, or
registered dog owner has the title, and all of the rights that accompany
ownership, but is not in temporary possession of said property. Property can be
acquired in numerous ways, it can be bought, inherited, received as a gift. A
sale transfers ownership from the seller to the buyer. It is the expected
responsibility of the owner to maintain the property in such a manner as to
cause no harm to either the property, or to the surrounding neighbors, or
neighborhood. With ownership, comes responsibilities that are not incurred by
those persons having simple possession, such as a guardian. A guardian is simply
a buffer between the actual owner i.e. the landlord, or in the case of animals,
or human beings the government. The guardian has no intrinsic rights of
possession, that possession is transitory and is subject to the terms of
agreement between the true owner, and the guardian. A guardian has no rights in
buying, selling, or trading of property. A guardian is financially responsible
for the property while said property is in his/her possession.

Emotional attachment in an animal is an important reason to retain ownership,
rather than relinquishing said ownership. An owner has a legal right to
possession. Only when an owner’s negligence, or carelessness gives due cause for
the removal of the property may authorities take legal steps to remove that
property from the ownership, and possession of the titled owner. Each case must
be tried on an individual basis so that all owners are not subject to the same
punishments as the irresponsible, careless, or negligent owner.

Breed specific dog laws are much easier to fight when we retain ownership, and
use rights over our animals. There has been great headway made in the Courts of
this land to overturn BSL, after the initial losses. Animals are among the most
ancient of traditional property. If we wish to continue to have animals in our
possession, then we should fight strenuously to retain our ownership, and
property rights.

Comment by Mikee — June 5, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Comment by Mikee — June 5, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

“RDOWS POSITION STATEMENT ON DOGS AS PROPERTY”

If that is true for dogs than cats must be worth a fortune.

Comment by MFEMFEM — June 5, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Yes, I agree with Mikee. I must have a dog license to show that I have ownership of my dog and there are basic requirements to obtaining that license like proving that you have had your dog protected against rabies.

I was proud to own my dog just like I am proud to own my house and thought I was taking good care of her. She would have been 5 this past week.

I did get an e-mail from Sen. Dick Durbin (D) IL outlining his amendment to … well I have attached it so you can all read it…and if it’s already been posted…sorry for the duplicate.

However, I think it sounds like a solid first step in the attempt to try to protect not only animals but people as well from contaminated products. That is if the FDA has enough money to do any of it! Anyway, here it is:

Since you have contacted me in the past regarding the widespread recalls of pet food, I wanted to give you this update.

During the Senate’s debate on the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act, I offered an amendment to improve several facets of our food safety system as it applies to pets and humans.

Specifically, my amendment will:

require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to update standards for the labeling of pet food to include ingredients and nutritional information;

direct the Department of Health and Human Services to establish an early warning system that will monitor any outbreaks of illnesses associated with pet food;

promote cooperation between state and federal agencies tasked with regulating food safety;

create a registry for reporting cases of adulterated food; and

impose civil penalties on importers or manufacturers that fail to report adulterated food to the FDA in a timely manner.

These provisions will improve the FDA’s ability to regulate the pet food industry and help to ensure that pet owners have the information they need to make informed buying decisions.

The Senate passed my amendment by a vote of 94-0 and included it in the final bill, which passed 93-1.

I have also introduced the Human and Pet Food Safety Act of 2007 (S. 1274). S. 1274 addresses many problems highlighted by the recent pet food crisis and tackles broader issues related to food safety.

This measure would authorize the FDA to assess civil penalties against companies who fail to recall food products that have been identified as posing a potential threat to public health. In the event that a company refuses to recall a contaminated food product, the bill grants the Food and Drug Administration the authority to issue a mandatory recall.

S. 1274 also would require that all imported food products meet certification standards and would grant FDA inspectors the authority to visit foreign countries for the purpose of conducting investigations.

Finally, the bill would direct the Food and Drug Administration to provide an annual report to Congress that contains information about the origin and type of all imported food products, the number of inspections performed on these products, and any violations identified by inspectors.

Many Americans have suffered the loss of a beloved pet due to the contamination of pet food. We must work to improve oversight of the pet food industry, so that pet owners can feel confident about the safety of the food they find in veterinary offices and on supermarket and pet store shelves.

I will continue to work to improve the safety of our food supply for humans and pets. Thank you again for sharing your views. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

Comment by Greer H. — June 5, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Binding arbitration doesn’t sound so great. I would like to see something that has real teeth in it so manuf. get the point. Be moral and ethical. There is no such thing as it’s the middle man’s fault - he didn’t tell me.

Seems like there needs to be an impartial judge and jury. Publicity of an impending suit would gain more nationwide attention than an arbitration behind closed doors. And, that secrecy would benefit the company.

Katie

Comment by Katie — June 5, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
I understand the conundrum people are facing here: we have such strong feelings about our animals that it seems insulting to call them “property,” yet animals aren’t the same as human beings.

Still, when I think of “property,” I think of something that I own that is usally of the inanimate type. Like a car, computer or toaster. But although I appreciate the convenience a car would give me, I can’t scratch its belly. My computer is a very useful tool for me, but it doesn’t wag anything for me when I turn it on or fetch anything I throw. My toaster makes my bread a bit more interesting, but I sure wouldn’t cuddle with it.

So, our animal friends aren’t people, but they aren’t clammy, inanimate “property” either. I think there has to be some kind of third category— maybe there is one and we haven’t thought of it yet.

I understand that people will refer to animals as “property” to avoid lawsuits regarding the pet food recall thus taking responsibilty for their actions. If they want to think of animals as “property” and suggest that owners didn’t experience any loss, emotional or otherwise, due to the death of their pets, I would smash them over the head with the same cold, hard logic they use.

I would merely say, “If you want to say that my pet is nearly ‘property,’ then fine. Then I’m suing you for ‘property damage,’ just as I would do had you smashed your car though the front of my house, threw a brick through my window or backed up into my car. You’ve damaged my ‘property’ through your ignorance and negligance, so you’ll have to pay the consequences like anyone else who has had their ‘property’ damaged.

I’d like to see them argue that one. End of story.

Comment by J. Feher — June 5, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
I never really thought about having pets in a separate class as “the other pat” proposed, but I have to say I like it. It could keep vet costs down (a bit), while at the same time telling the world that our pets are important to us.
In an unrelated to the pet food incident visit to a lawyer yesterday, my pets were written down as worth TWO DOLLARS. That’s right, you read two dollars!!!
This was part of divorce proceedings, and it was in my favor to not list them as any more valuable than that, but I can tell you this is not sitting well with me.
These dogs have received tons of training, and I use the two of them extensively with my business as a dog trainer, but they have no real resale value.
In a separate case with a different lawyer I am going after more money for one of my dogs who was propelled out a window in a car accident last summer that was not my fault. The dog nearly died. Because she is not only my pet, but a working partner, she is quite valuable to me, and as you can imagine the entire ordeal was horrific. Even if the NJ bill passes it is still highly unlikely that I will be compensated past some of her medical bills.

Comment by nancy — June 6, 2007 @ 5:09 am
the sad fact is that liability law fails us all, both animal and human, in regard to food safety issues. liability is after the fact…. which in my opinion is way too late from a public safety standpoint. while it might give me feeling of vindication to receive damages from a company that harmed me or my pet, i’d prefer laws that help to prevent the sorts of things we’re seeing in this pet food and food safety debacle. most annoying is this confidentiality agreement crap that protects companies who obviously don’t give a rodent’s posterior how many pets… or people for that matter, suffer and die from ingesting their products. that the law should be set up to protect these companies is absolutely unaccaptable. confidentiality should end where public safety begins… and i include animal safety in that statement. a company like the Texas lab that found acetaminophen-contaminated food should be able to go to a federal judge, have the confidentiality agreement that they made with these companies nullified, and inform the public what it knows about dangerous foods. until the law stops protecting what i consider to be criminals, laws that recognize companion animals as having any rights won’t save their lives, but only recompense pet owners after the fact… i doubt that the dead animal would see that as a victory.

Comment by explodinghed — June 6, 2007 @ 6:26 am
Family or things, they are alive. They have life. Life is truly rare in the universe. They are important; and they matter in the greater scheme of things. They deserve respect and should not be murdered.

People do have status in the courts. People cared for these animals. Unknowingly fed them poison, took them to the Vet. Paid good money to get them put back together. Took them home and unknowingly fed them poison, again. And ultimately, still unknowingly, killed a loved one.

Even if we ignore the poor ‘things’ plight, that’s a lot of human suffering. Human suffering has been established in the courts.

Responsibility is on the FDA, AAFCO, PFI, ASPCA, HSUS, AVMA, and anyone else responsible for, or in a position to, monitor the safety, quality and nutrition of pet food. They are all culpable.

Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — June 6, 2007 @ 6:27 am
Comment by ‘reader Mike’ — June 5, 2007 @ 3:41 pm

“pet-owner/guardians (nothing negative about that term….)”

Well, maybe, and then again, maybe not . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://dogpolitics.typepad.com.....s_a_k.html

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Pets are our family. Not things or property. Think of the blind that need their see and eye canine family members. Or the elderly that lives longer because they only have their canine family member to keep them safe from harmful intruders, fire or danger of any kind.

My baby, Tori, who is a 19 month old Shih Tzu Imperial, got the Petfood poisoning and now has the damaged kidneys of an old dog, and has to receive intravenous fluids daily plus pills, for the rest of his life.

It seems all of the government’s systems are broken, and no one with the power to change them gives a damn. The vegetable poisoning, the various medicines, and the list goes on and on.

We should be able to sue anyone not fullfilling their assigned responsibilities of protecting man, woman and family, whether it be child or pet. Look at the $ spent and put into our economy each year on our pets. They don’t mind taking our money, but no one guarantees protection.

I’m looking for one of the attorneys handling the class actions lawsuits to add my name. My pet will die young and I’ve already spent tons of money on trying to improve what time he does live. Hitting the responsible parties in their pocket books is the only way you can get
their attention.

Therefore, anyone with information on the class action suits, please contact me at tcrobertson@bellsouth.net.

Heart Broken in Boca Raton, FL - Threasa

Comment by Threasa Robertson — June 6, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Theresa, you might want to check out this thread on Itchmo:

http://itchmoforums.com/index.php?board=56.0

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 3:10 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?