Do You Buy Pet Food From Any of These 6 Con Artists?

原文刊出日：January 09, 2017 

作者：Dr. Becker

原文連結：https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2017/01/09/prescription-pet-foods-lawsuit.aspx?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=facebookpets_ranart&utm_campaign=20180227_prescription-pet-foods-lawsuit

I frequently discuss “prescription" pet diets here at Mercola Healthy Pets in terms of the cheap, biologically inappropriate ingredients they contain, much like most other processed pet foods on the market.

我常和大家討論寵物處方食品，重點大多放在處方食品使用廉價、不適合物種的食材，就和絕大多數其他加工寵物食品一樣。

I typically don’t talk as much about the high cost of these diets or the fact that there’s nothing in the majority of them that requires a prescription, because my focus is usually on the low-quality ingredients instead.

通常我不會特別提到處方食品的高價位，也沒有提到在絕大多數的處方食品中，並沒有處方需求。

But if you’ve ever purchased one of these “special” dry or canned diets for a pet, you know how expensive they are, and you might be interested to learn that a group of pet parents recently filed a class action lawsuit against several pet industry companies, alleging (to state, affirm) they engaged in price fixing of prescription dog and cat food in the U.S. in violation of anti-trust and consumer protection laws.

如果你買過處方乾飼料或罐頭，就會知道這種食品很貴，進而可能想知道其實有一群寵物主人最近對美國幾家寵物食品公司提出集體訴訟，主張寵物食品公司的處方食品定價違反「反托辣斯法」（反信任法）以及「消費者保護法」。

Defendants Include 6 of the Biggest Pet Industry Players

被告包括六家最大的寵物食品製造商

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California and lists the defendants as Mars Petcare, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Nestlé Purina Petcare, Banfield Pet Hospital, Blue Pearl Pet Hospital and PetSmart. Read the full complaint.

這則訴訟是在北加州的地方法院提出，列出來的被告有馬氏集團（皇家等品牌）、希爾思寵物食品公司、雀巢普瑞納、Banfield寵物醫院、Blue Pearl寵物醫院以及PetSmart寵物連鎖店。

The plaintiffs原告, pet owners who purchased prescription diets from one or more of the companies, assert 主張,堅持they conspired with each other to falsely promote “prescription” pet food. The specific pet diets mentioned in the complaint include:

• Hill’s Prescription Diet
• Purina Pro Plan Veterinary Diets
• Royal Canin Veterinary Diet
• Iams Veterinary Formula 愛慕思

原告，也就是購買寵物食品的主人，認為這六家公司彼此合作，不實地推廣促銷「處方」寵物食品，以下是這件訴訟案被點名的品牌：

希爾思處方

普瑞納Pro Plan處方

皇家處方

愛慕思處方

The complaint points out there’s no reason for the foods to require a prescription, since they contain no drug or other ingredient not commonly found in non-prescription pet diets. The lawsuit further alleges:

原告指出這些食品沒有理由標示為處方食品，因為這些食品既沒有包含任何藥品，食材和一般的非處方食品也沒有什麼不同。

“Retail consumers, including Plaintiffs, have overpaid and made purchases they otherwise would not have made on account of Defendants’ abuse and manipulation of the ‘prescription’ requirement.”

原告認為如果製造商沒有濫用「處方」需求，消費者，包括原告，不會付出高價購買這些處方食品。

Lawsuit Accuses Big Pet Food of Abusing Their Dominant Position in the Marketplace

原告指控大型寵物食品公司濫用市場的主導地位

Mars PetCare is the largest supplier of pet food in the world. Nestlé Purina Petcare is in second place, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition is No. 4.

馬氏集團是全球最大的寵物食品供應商。雀巢普瑞納是第二大，第四名是希爾斯。

PetSmart is the largest pet supply chain in the U.S., Banfield is the largest veterinary clinic chain and Blue Pearl is the largest veterinary specialty and emergency care chain.

PetSmart是美國最大的寵物商品連鎖店。Banfield是最大的連鎖寵物診所，而Blue Pearl是最大的專業獸醫和急診照顧連鎖醫院。

The lawsuit argues that these companies abuse their position as the biggest players in the industry to promote “prescription” diets for dogs and cats.

原告主張這些機構濫用在市場的主導地位，推廣促銷貓狗「處方」食品。

Veterinarians actually hand pet owners written prescriptions for a certain kind of pet food, and the pet owners go to PetSmart or another location to purchase the prescribed food. These pet guardians, according to the complaint, are typical of people who consistently follow the advice and direction of medical professionals.

獸醫開出處方箋給主人購買處方食品，主人拿著處方箋去PetSmart或其他地方購買。這些寵物主人是典型的遵守專業醫療建議和方法的主人。

Why Is a Pet Product Containing No Drugs or Other Controlled Substances Being Sold by Prescription Only?

不含藥物或其他管制物質的寵物食品，為什麼會被當作處方販售？

However, the “prescription” dog and cat diets manufactured by Mars, Purina and Hill’s are not evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because they don’t contain drugs or other controlled substances. According to Tim Wall, writing for PetfoodIndustry.com:

FDA（美國食品藥物管理局）並沒有檢驗馬氏集團、普瑞納和希爾思所製造的貓狗「處方」食品，因為這些食品並不含藥物或其他管制物質。網站Petfoodindustry.com一篇Tim Wall寫的文章指出：

“The case document states that the American public reasonably expects a prescription requirement implies that a substance is medically necessary, contains a drug, medicine or controlled ingredient, has been FDA evaluated and legally requires a prescription. The plaintiffs allege that the prescription pet foods do not meet these criteria.”¹

「此案文件指出，美國大眾合理期待的處方定義，是含有醫療上需要使用的物質、藥物或其他管制物質，而且有經過FDA的檢驗，符合法律上的處方需求。原告認為寵物處方食品並不符合這些條件。」

The lawsuit asserts that the prescription requirement allows the defendants to “… market and sell Prescription Pet Food at well-above market prices that would not otherwise prevail in the absence of the Prescription Authorization.”

這起訴訟認為處方需求允許被告「．．．行銷及販售寵物處方食品，而且訂價遠遠超過市場行情，如果沒有冠上處方字眼，這種食品不會如此盛行。」

There are legitimate (based on logical reasoning) reasons why “prescription” diets for specific medical conditions should not be fed to healthy animals.

For instance, feeding a diet intentionally lower in protein and phosphorus may be warranted (to provide adequate ground) for end-stage kidney disease patients, but it would be a poor choice for healthy or growing animals.

基於合理的原因，處方食品不應該被拿來餵健康的動物。例如腎臟病末期的動物可能需要吃低蛋白質低磷的食品，但這種食品並不適合健康或成長中的動物。

The deception about “prescription” ingredients in the foods, for the most part, is legitimate. There is one exception. One human-grade, fresh pet food company producing medical diets that actually do contain therapeutic ingredients, such as Chitosan to bind phosphorus in their kidney formula.

‘Defendants Are Engaged in an Anticompetitive Conspiracy’

被告致力於防止競爭的陰謀

The complaint further asserts that the positioning of the pet food as “prescription” is effective in part because all the defendants work together to promote it. The veterinary clinic defendants write the “prescriptions” for the food, which is made by the pet food company defendants, and sold by defendant PetSmart.

原告認為「處方」字眼之所以具有效率，是因為全體被告一起合作推廣促銷處方。被告獸醫院開出其他被告製造的處方食品，然後交由另一被告PetSmart販售。

Many people are unaware that Mars owns 79 percent of Banfield. Guess who owns the remaining 21 percent? PetSmart (which is why many Banfield clinics are located inside PetSmart stores). Mars also owns 100 percent of Blue Pearl. According to the complaint:

很多人不知道馬氏集團擁有Banfield連鎖醫院79%的股份。猜一猜誰擁有剩下的21%股份？是PetSmart寵物商品連鎖店（這也就是為什麼這家店內有Banfield獸醫院）。馬氏集團擁有Blue Pearl專業獸醫和急診照顧連鎖醫院100%的股份。

The lawsuit alleges that selling the pet food as “prescription” is unfair and deceptive under California consumer protection laws. I’ll definitely keep an eye out for activity on this class action lawsuit and update you when there’s progress.

原告主張根據加州消費者保護法，把這些食品當成「處方」販售既不公平而且是欺騙。我一定會持續關注此一案件，有任何最新發展都會告知讀者。

Meanwhile, if your own veterinarian is in the habit of recommending “prescription” pet food for your dog or cat, I encourage you to ask for balanced, homemade recipes instead. Otherwise, you’ll be spending a lot of money for poor-quality pet food that will not improve your furry family member’s health in the long run.

如果你的獸醫習慣推荐貓狗處方食品，我建議你改餵營養完整均衡的自製食。不然你只是花很多錢，買了品質很糟的寵物食品而已，對你的寵物健康一點幫助都沒有。

Judge Sides With Purina in Beneful Class Action Lawsuit

法官站在普瑞納那邊

In other pet food legal news, last year I wrote about another class action lawsuit brought against Nestlé Purina PetCare’s Beneful brand dry dog food. The plaintiff in that case alleged that Beneful sickened two of his dogs and caused the death of a third.

另一件寵物食品新聞，是去年我寫的針對雀巢普瑞納的Beneful狗乾飼料提起的訴訟。原告認為他的狗吃了這款乾飼料後有兩隻生病，一隻死亡。

Sadly, despite literally thousands of online consumer complaints and two prior lawsuits filed against this particular brand of dog food, a California federal judge recently ruled that the proposed lawsuit failed to prove the product was unsafe. Read the summary judgment here. According to Law360:

可惜的是，儘管有好幾千人在網路上投訴這款乾飼料，而且還有兩件訴訟案，但是加州聯邦法官最近做出判決，認為該案無法證明這個產品不安全。

The following statement from Courthouse News Service is a good summary of what the plaintiff’s expert found in his analysis of Beneful samples:

以下是媒體Courthouse News Service的報導摘要，內容是針對原告的專家分析Beneful樣本所得到的發現：

“An analysis of 28 samples [from bags of Beneful suspected of causing illness in several dogs] revealed three types of toxins: propylene glycol丙二醇; mycotoxins霉菌毒素, a fungal mold on grain; and the heavy metals arsenic and lead.

「分析28個造成狗生病的Beneful樣本，發現三種有毒物質：丙二醇、霉菌毒素、重金屬砒霜和鉛。

But the level of toxins found in the dog chow did not exceed limits permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. Plaintiffs’ expert analyzed 28 of 1,400 dog food samples from incidents of dogs that got ill after eating Beneful. The sampling was limited because not all dog owners had kept the chow.

但是這些毒物的分量都沒有超過FDA許可的範圍。在1400份狗吃了後生病的Beneful乾狗糧中，原告專家分析了其中28件。樣本的取得有限，因為並非所有狗主人都還留著乾糧。

The expert, animal toxicologist Dr. John Tegzes, claimed the FDA based its dog chow toxin limits only on short-term exposure and did not consider the effects of long-term exposure.

動物毒物學者Dr. John Tegzes說FDA的狗食毒物標準，只是根據短期的攝取，沒有考慮到長期攝取會造成的影響。

He said studies used to establish FDA tolerance limits were ‘poorly designed’ and tended to look only at the effects on dogs over weeks, rather than years. While Tegzes could not say definitively that the toxins caused the dogs to get sick, he concluded that chronic exposure to mycotoxins, heavy metals and glycols posed a ‘significant health risk’ to dogs and could adversely affect their health.”³

他說限制攝取量的研究「設計不良」，而且只專注在幾週內會對狗造成的影響，而不是幾年。Dr. John Tegzes無法肯定是毒物造成狗生病，但他說長期攝取丙二醇、霉菌毒素、重金屬砒霜和鉛，會對狗的健康「造成實質風險」，破壞健康。

This is a very legitimate argument that many of us who are passionate about pet nutrition have been making for years. It is absolutely true that pet food feeding trials (considered the “gold standard” in the industry) are of very short duration. If a new formula doesn’t immediately kill the dogs or cats in the feeding trial, it goes to market.

對於關心寵物營養的我們這些人而言，以上論點是合理的。「寵物食品餵食研究」（被認為是此行業的黃金準則）進行的期間很短。如果一個新配方在餵食研究中沒有立刻害死狗或貓，這個新配方就可以上市。

No one, least of all pet food manufacturers, is interested in funding studies to evaluate the long-term health effects of a food typically eaten twice a day, every day, often for a lifetime.

沒有人願意去贊助研究這種食品長期吃，而且是每天吃吃一輩子，對健康會不會造成影響，寵物食品公司尤其沒有贊助興趣。

Purina ‘Revamps’ Beneful Formula

普瑞納乾狗糧Beneful改頭換面

In a statement so very typical of what we’ve come to expect from the processed pet food industry, Nestlé Purina spokeswoman Wendy Vlieks said of the summary judgment:

普瑞納發言人Wendy Vlieks說：

“Today’s ruling confirms what millions of pet owners already know — that Beneful is a safe, healthy and nutritious dog food that millions of dogs enjoy every day.” ⁴

「今天的判決確認了數百萬寵物主人早已知道的事實，那就是Beneful是安全、健康而且營養的狗食。幾百萬隻狗每天都開心的吃著這個食品。」

Interestingly, the company recently “revamped” their Beneful formulas. Per PetfoodIndustry.com:

但很有意思的是，普瑞納最近把Beneful配方改頭換面。根據Petfoodindustry.com網站的資料指出：

“Meat now is the first ingredient in chicken and beef varieties. Added sugar has been removed from all recipes. According to the company, the Beneful’s recipes now include 22 grams or more of protein per cup. The dog food also includes vegetables and fruits, like spinach, peas, carrots and apples.”⁵

「肉現在是雞肉和牛肉口味的第一食材。所有配方都不再使用糖。根據普瑞納所言，新的Beneful配方每一杯多了22 公克的蛋白質。此外這包狗食還有蔬菜和水果，例如波菜、豆子、胡蘿蔔和蘋果。」

Since there’s no mention of the toxins found by Dr. Tegyes, it’s reasonable to assume Purina didn’t address the issue in their “revamped” formula. So if you happen to feed this stuff to your dog, keep in mind you’re very likely also feeding him small amounts of propylene glycol, mycotoxins, arsenic and lead on a daily basis.

普瑞納沒有提到Dr. Tegyes發現的毒物，合理推測這一包改頭換面新配方的狗食，並沒有去處理毒物問題。如果你剛好餵狗吃這包食品，那你可能每天少量的餵你的狗吃下丙二醇、霉菌毒素、重金屬砒霜和鉛。

In addition, looking at the “Beneful Dry Dog Food Originals with real beef” formula as an example, seven of the top 10 ingredients are grains.⁶ This a grain-based food, not a meat-based, species-appropriate diet for dogs, despite the “with real beef” marketing claim.

此外，Beneful狗乾糧的食材列表中，以使用真正牛肉的配方為例，最前面的十種食材中有七種是穀物。這根本是一個以穀物為主，不是以肉為主的食品，不適合物種，儘管廠商行銷時說他們用的是真正的牛肉。

And those “22 grams or more of protein per cup” are primarily plant-based proteins, not species-appropriate meat-based proteins. This is junk food for dogs, and based on all the consumer complaints about Beneful and the toxins found by the California plaintiff’s expert, it could be potentially much worse than just junk.

至於「每杯多了22克的蛋白質」，主要是來自植物而不是肉的蛋白質。這包食品對狗來說根本是垃圾食品，而且根據消費者的投訴，以及原告專家所發現的毒物，這包乾狗糧可能比垃圾食品還要糟糕。

本文作者獸醫凱倫．貝克1997年畢業於愛華州立大學獸醫學院。1996年獲得國際獸醫針炙協會頒發的動物針炙師執照。讀大學時因為愛犬潔美奈長期吃商業寵物食品，導致乙氧基喹因（抗氧化劑）中毒而肝衰竭，她開始餵狗吃生肉搭配醫療照顧。潔美奈身體恢復健康，讓貝克醫生看到新鮮食物的力量。2009年貝克醫生開始固定在梅克拉網站（http://healthypets.mercola.com/）發表寵物健康相關文章，至2013年該網站已成全球最大寵物健康網。貝克醫生臉書粉絲專頁已累積超過一百萬個讚，是目前追踪人數最多的獸醫。

本文作者謝凱特，譯有「你的貓」一書。東吳大學英文系畢業。養貓三十年。大約2011年開始餵生食。興趣是讀英文小說和貓生食相關知識。

馬氏集團一年的營收大約是60億美金，約台幣1800億。這麼有錢的集團，就算是聯合數人的集體訴訟，我覺得都不可能告贏他們，這一起集體訴訟只是在引起貓狗主人去注意處方食品的定義而已。看起來是少數幾家集團在主宰整個巨大的美國寵物食品市場，遊戲規則完全由他們自己訂，很可怕。

根據本文內容，處方的定義是含有醫療上需要使用的物質、藥物或其他管制物質，而且有經過FDA的檢驗，符合法律上的處方需求。寵物處方食品完全不符合以上的要求。

文中提到的普瑞納Beneful乾狗糧好像沒有進口到台灣，但是台灣市場有許多普瑞納的其他產品，我個人是不會購買普瑞納任何產品的。

謝小丸子祝大家週末愉快

註：本文在新浪部落格的原始刊出日大約是2018年3月。

註：原文連結已失效，所以保留英文原文。