Rachael Ray Dog Food Class Action Lawsuits Tossed, Again

UPDATE: Read the latest on dog food recalls in the recent Sportmix pet food class action lawsuit that has been filed, following the death of 70+ dogs. 

A New York federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit that claims Rachael Ray Nutrish dog food is labeled as being “natural” even though it contains a trace amount of a herbicide.

U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton had dismissed the claims before, but plaintiff Markeith Parks filed an amended complaint, rearguing that the company violated New York General Business Law as well as false advertising and breach of express warranty.

Parks claimed that the dog food, made by Ainsworth Pet Nutrition LLC, should not be labeled as “natural” because it contains glyphosate, which is a weed killer.

Parks filed her complaint in August 2018, alleging that she and other consumers were harmed because she did not know that the Rachael Ray Nutrish dog food contained glyphosate.

She notes in her class action that no consumer would expect a dog food with the label “natural” on it to contain chemicals that could be harmful to pets.

The dog food class action lawsuit argued that by deceiving consumers by using the term “natural” in their advertising, the company could charge a premium price for the product.

The court dismissed the original class action lawsuit in April 2019 due to a lack of specificity. The judge wrote that the presence of “negligible amounts of glyphosate in a dog food product that do not have harmful, ‘toxic,’ or ‘carcinogenic’ effects is not likely to affect consumers’ decisions in purchasing the product and is thus not harmful.”

After Parks amended the class action suit, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss the complaint or, to the alternative, stay the action until they received guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on using the term “natural.”

However, Parks argued that the amount of glyphosate in the dog food is not relevant to materiality and that it is misleading to label a product as “natural” if it contains harmful ingredients like glyphosate, no matter the amount.

According to the judge’s opinion, the original complaint did not state the amount of glyphosate in the product and whether the amount of the weed killer is harmful or non-toxic.

However, the court in its previous order allowed the plaintiff to replead the facts with supporting information about the amount of glyphosate in the dog food.

Parks argues that laboratory testing detected the presence of glyphosate at a level of 19.85 parts per billion. The court states that this level amounts to 0.0005 percent of the allowed level in “animal feed.”

“The level of glyphosate in the tested Products is negligible and significantly lower than the FDA’s limit, which supports a finding that the Products’ glyphosate residue is not likely to affect consumer choice and that labeling them ‘natural’ is not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer,” the judge wrote.

Do you think dog food labeled as “natural” should contain trace amounts of a weed killer? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Kim E. Richman of Richman Law Group and Michael J. Gabrielli of Gabrielli Levitt LLP.

The Rachael Ray Nutrish Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit is Markeith Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition LLC d/b/a Rachael Ray Nutrish, Case No. 1:18-cv-06936-LLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Neocate Infant Formula Linked to Broken Bones, Rickets: Study

What Type of Lung Cancer is Caused by Asbestos?

Regions Bank May Have Charged Illegal Post-Payment Fees on Mortgages