Purina Defeats Toxic Beneful Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit against Nestle Purina PetCare Co. claiming Beneful dog food killed or sickened thousands of pet has been dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted summary judgment to Purina Thursday, rejecting testimony from the plaintiffs’ expert that suggested Beneful dog food was the direct cause of their dogs’ illnesses or deaths.

Lead plaintiff Frank Lucido filed the class action lawsuit against Purina in February 2015, claiming the company failed to adequately test its dog food or disclose the presence of toxins in Beneful dog food.

Purina moved to dismiss the case in April 2015, calling it a “lawsuit-by-social-media.” However, the plaintiffs countered and moved for certification of 15 Classes and 15 subclasses in July 2015.

The Beneful dog food class action lawsuit mostly centered on whether the ingredients in the Beneful dog food were toxic. The plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. John Tegzes, an animal toxicologist, analyzed a limited sampling 28 of 1,400 Beneful dog food provided by pet owners who dogs got sick after consuming Beneful dog food.

Dr. Tegzes analysis allegedly revealed that three types of toxins: propylene glycol; mycotoxins, a fungal mold on grain; and the heavy metals arsenic and lead were present in the dog food that could pose a “significant health risk” to dogs.

While these toxin levels did not exceed the amount allowed by the FDA, Dr. Tegzes stated that the FDA did not take into consideration long-term exposure to the toxins in Beneful dog food.

But Judge Chen rejected Dr. Tegzes’ conclusion, ruling that the sampling study lacked specific data to support the findings: the exact level of mycotoxins in the dog food and what specific level of mycotoxins actually poses a safety risk. Additionally, the judge noted that the expert failed to examine the affected dog’s veterinary record and other health factors.

“Dr. Tegzes’s opinion is not reliable because the scientific literature he invokes is either too speculative or too imprecise. Simply put, Dr. Tegzes cites no epidemiological evidence that long-term exposure to mycotoxins at levels below the limits set by the FDA leads to serious health risks for dogs,” Judge Chen stated.

Further, the judge shut down the expert’s testimony that Purina failed to properly test its Beneful dog food, ruling that Dr. Tegzes had no specialized knowledge of the pet food manufacturing process, testing or quality control procedures.

Judge Chen also refused to permit Dr. Tegzes and another expert, veterinarian Dr. Jena Questen, to give testimony about the importance of dog food safety and testing for consumers, finding that neither witness was qualified to testify on “consumer preferences.”

Chen said the plaintiffs’ case ultimately relied on Tegzes’ opinions, and dismissed the case on grounds that “because the court finds Dr. Tegzes’ opinions unreliable, plaintiffs’ case has no evidentiary support.”

Judge Chen denied plaintiffs’ request to submit additional evidence.

The consumers are represented by Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Kimbrell & Solen LLC, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Pastor Law Office LLP, Leonard Law Office PC, Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP, Consumer Law Group, Lackey Hershman LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Gilman Law LLP, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP, the Animal Law Center, the Richman Law Group, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC and the Law Offices of S. Chandler Visher.

The Beneful Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit is Frank Lucido, et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-00569, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.