Nestlé PetCare Purina Company: Lawsuit on Beneful Dry Kibble (2015)

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company Headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri

Controversy: Nestlé Purina PetCare Company (Nestlé Purina) manufactures and distributes food product for cats and dogs. It operates as a subsidiary of Nestlé S.A. , which is a food and beverage company that was founded in 1866 and is headquartered in Vevey Switzerland. The current C.E.O. of the company is Ulf Mark Schneider. It operates in more than 70 companies through Europe, Americas, Asia Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa. Its products ranges from baby food, coffee, frozen food to dog food. 

Advertisement four months after

outbreak of lawsuits.

In year 2015, Nestlé PetCare Purina Company was faced with multiple lawsuits on their dog food product, the Beneful Series Dry Kibble. The dry kibble variations named in the suit include Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Incredibites, and Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies, Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta, Purina Beneful Healthy Radiance, and Purina Beneful Playful Life. Within these lawsuits from states including California, Massachusetts, Missouri and more, the common allegations was that Beneful was manufactured with harmful toxins like propylene glycol and mycotoxin that caused illness and/or death. In addition to the lawsuits, more than 3000 pet owners had complained through the safety reports of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ConsumerAffairs.com about their dogs getting sick after switching solely to Beneful. The most recent death reported was today, April 5, 2018. The dogs that were sick shared symptoms of kidney failure, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach related internal bleeding, weight loss and liver malfunction. Even though this chemical was listed as a safe substance by the FDA, there are research that have shown positive and negative effects of these chemicals. Because the effect of sickness happened after the pets solely consumed Purina, for 3000 times, as a same pattern of sickness, it is highly likely that Purina does have dangerous substances in their dog food. Moreover, on April 21, 2016, the FDA published a report after finding overdosage of cyanuric acid and melamine in six samples of Beneful Series Dry Kibble. However, the only response from Nestlé Purina PetCare Company was an arrogant short statement, saying "Vets know pets get sick for many reasons and the food they eat is often not the root cause".


Individualism: This ethical framework argues that “business actions should maximize profits or the owners of a business, but do so within the law”. Nestlé Purina was unethical because it violated two rules and regulations while attempting to maximize profits. According to the FDA report, six samples of the Beneful Series Dry Kibble had cyanuric acid and melamine ‘above the allowable level’. According to the president of TruthAboutPetFood.com, these were “the two deadliest adulterants in the history of pet food”. Also, the report also stated that the samples collected “contained ethoxyquin; 
[and it] was not indicated on the product labeling”. This violates another tule because the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) required that the full ingredient list to be labeled on food packages but Nestlé Purina did not follow this rule.

A dog consuming dry kibble of the Beneful series.

Stakeholders and Utilitarianism: The stakeholders involved in this case include the dogs from more than 3000 households that have suffered from illness after consuming Beneful. Utilitarianism states that the main purpose of a company is to “maximize happiness in the long run”. However, in this case, happiness is clearly taken away because the dogs that were originally healthy went through pain after eating Beneful. Another stakeholder of this case is the pet owners of these dogs. They had their happiness taken away when their pets, which they treasure as part of the family, suffered illness and/or passed away. These pet owners had to give up their happiness emotionally in order to grief for their pets and financially in order to provide the best medical treatment for their pets. The third stakeholder in this case was the community of pet owners who were still feeding their pets Beneful. Their happiness was taken away because they would become concern of their pet’s health when the news broke out. The fourth stakeholder will be Nestlé Purina's employees and shareholders because the sales of the company was affected, and this put the company's asset and liability at risk, which in turn affects the management of the company. In this situation, Nestlé Purina's happiness was violated because of the loss of company stability. 

A picture on their website stating their slogan: "Your Pet, Our Passion".

Kantianism: Kantianism states that people should be honest and not interfere a rationale of another rational being. Kantianism also states that people should treat another rational being as a means to their end. The company claimed on its website that it maintained “a strict code of standards for buying, storing and processing ingredients used in [their] pet foods”. Kantianism advocates for “autonomy of individuals, honesty and freedom” would say this case was ethically impermissible. Nestlé Purina declared that their dry kibble had safe ingredients when in fact it contained substances that caused tragedy on the dogs’ lives. Moreover, Nestlé Purina also exploited their customers by continuing to deny the responsibility of mistakes in products. This helped protect their reputation so that they could continue earning profit from their customers. However, Kantianism would say this is not ethical because, based on the formula of humanity, Nestlé Purina used their customers as means to their ends. 

An example of the Beneful series dry kibble:

Purina Beneful Healthy Weight

Virtue Theory: Justice, prudence, intelligence and honesty are a few of the many virtues that help business people to flourish within the society. In the perspective of Virtue Theory, Nestlé Purina was not ethically permissible. This is because they did not act in according to prudence when they responded with a commercial where employees who made Beneful Series Dry Kibble were feeding it to their dogs, demonstrating confidence in their products. Even though four months later, the Beneful series might have been safe to consume again, this did not directly address the stakeholders' loss. Rather, the company decided to continue to promote their product to gain profit. This caused a feeling of injustice within concerned customers and showed how the company did not act intelligently when a controversy arose. They also were not intelligent in fulfilling the purpose that they company set for themselves. With the slogan of "Your Pet, Our Passion”, Nestlé Purina did not do what it promised the public with its products. In addition, the dry kibble did not fulfill its purposes of nourishing the health of the pets, as stated on the label on the packet. Also, lying to their customers about the ingredients violates the honesty virtue. Therefore, Nestlé Purina failed to be ethical in the perspective of Virtue Theory.
References:

Carey, Gillam. “California dog owner alleges Purina Beneful pet food can kill.” Reuters, 25 Feb. 2015, www.reuters.com/article/usa-purina-lawsuit/california-dog-owner-alleges-purina-beneful-pet-food-can-kill-idUSL1N0VZ1LL20150225. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Company Overview of Nestle Purina PetCare Company.” Bloomberg,www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=33452.Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

“Dog Owners Alarmed at Beneful Lawsuit as Purina Denies Claims.” NBC News. 8 Mar. 2015. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dog-owners-alarmed-beneful-lawsuit-purina-denies-claims-n316856. Accessed 3 Mar. 2018.

Laine, Samantha. Purina lawsuit: Does one of its products cause pets to become ill? The Christian Science Monitor, 24 Feb. 2015, www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0225/Purina-lawsuit-Does-one-of-its-products-cause-pets-to-become-ill. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina’s Beneful is Poisoning, Killing Dogs.” NBC News. 24 Feb. 2015,www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawsuit-claims-purinas-beneful-poisoning-killing-dogs-n312176. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

“Lawsuit Claims Purina Beneful Pet Food Sickens Kills Dogs.” CBS News, 25 Feb. 2015,www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-claims-purina-beneful-pet-food-sickens-kills-dogs. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Lupkin, Sydney. “Lawsuit Claims Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets”, ABC News, 24 Feb.2015.

Salazar, Heather. “The Business Ethics Case Manual.” n.d.  Silva, Daniella. “Purina Backs Beneful Dog Food as Lawsuit Expands Allegations.” NBC News, 14 Jun. 2015, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/purina-backs-beneful-lawsuit-expands-allegations-n375101. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Thixton, Susan. “FDA Releases Concerning Information About Beneful.” Truth About Pet Food. http://truthaboutpetfood.com/fda-releases-concerning-information-about-beneful. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.'

Evanger's: Euthanasia Drug Found In Dog Food

Controversy

            Evanger’s is a pet necessities brand that started in 1935, by Fred Evanger. Evanger believed that his dogs deserved the highest quality ingredients in their food to make them and their offspring as healthy as they can be. Which is why Evanger started his company serving only natural ingredients in his food products. Within the last decade or so natural foods has become very popular around the world, especially in America. Since Evanger was already producing an all-natural dog food the company started getting more known and expanding. In 2003 the company was the first pet food company to make a food that is packaged by hand. In February of 2017, Evanger’s had recalled Hunks of Beef and Beef and Gravy dog foods after many dogs sick and one dead. The FDA did an investigation leading to the recall of Hunks of Beef dog food on February 3^rd. The contaminated cans were manufactured in Evanger’s plant in Wheeling, Illinois on June 6, 2016. This particular dog food was sold to 15 states in retail locations and on their website. After this recall was made the FDA discovered yet another dog food was made with the same ingredients, Beef and Gravy. This was only sold in 2 states, Washington and Maryland. The FDA has warned customers to not use these two types of dog food if stockpiled in their homes. After the FDA was done investigating they declared that only one batch of the dog food contained the drug. Even though the FDA said they no longer needed to recall all the dog food only that one batch, Evanger’s decided to voluntarily recall all dog food with the two names Beef and Gravy and Hunks of Beef. They are allowing anyone who has bought either can of this dog food to return it for a full refund and a case of another dog food.

 Stakeholders

            Stakeholders are the people affected by the actions of a business in both positive and negative ways. The stakeholders for the controversy of Evanger’s are the employees, customers, potential customers, and pets who were given the food. The employees are responsible for the packaging and they have their jobs on the line when it comes to this case. The customer’s who purchased the bad food are obviously not happy about it, and as for other customers their trust in the company has now shrunk or even vanished. The potential customers who were looking into this brand are now going to look somewhere else for dog food. The company will have to take a big loss on sales because of the case. The last stakeholders are not people but the dogs that were affected, many are sick and one even died because of the case.   

Can of Evanger's dog food

 Individualism

            Individualism is an ethical theory that states a business should maximize profits for the stakeholders legally. Evanger was not trying to make more profits by putting the euthanasia drug in their dog food. The company then had to take all products off the shelf and refund anyone who bought the product. Therefore an individualist would say the company was acting unethical because they were not maximizing profits for all the stakeholders.

 Utilitarianism

            Utilitarianism states that all conscious beings should have maximized happiness from a business’s actions. Evanger did not maximize happiness for any conscious being. The sick dogs and one dead dog, has lead to many people angry and sad. The employees and company would not be happy because the employees could lose their jobs, and the company could lose on profits. A utilitarian would say this case is unethical and no happiness was achieved.

 Kantianism

            Kantianism is a theory that states in something is causing harm to anyone else it is unethical. Kantians believe that we must respect the goals of other human beings and if they are not reached we shall not preform that action. In the case of Evanger’s the actions done were not the correct actions to be preformed. The actions of the recall were also unethical from a Kantians viewpoint, because this did not provide happiness to the people who are already dealing with sick dogs and the people who have to deal with a loss dog. Overall a Kantian would say this case is unethical and all actions by Evanger have been wrong.

Puppy

 Virtue Theory

            Virtue theory is a theory that is based off Aristotle’s ethics, which states a thing is happy if it is functioning the way it should be. If something is happy than they are living a good life.  In this case Evanger’s was acting ethically because they were honest with what was happening and they made sure their customers would be refunded fully. The employees that were in the packaging factory acted unethically because they were making many people angry and sad by allowing a euthanasia drug to make it into the food. Based on virtue theory I would conclude that Evanger was acting ethically and was doing what they could to make the stakeholders happy.
Justification Ethics Evaluation

         Evanger’s actions were justifiable in this case although their manufacturers were not. Evanger was doing the correct thing by offering those who already purchased the recalled product a full refund. The manufacturer was not being ethical due to how they had used meat containing the euthanasia drug in the dog food product. The manufacturer should not have been using meat that contained the euthanasia drug to produce Evanger’s product. If they had just used meat that was killed in way that did not leave any drug still in the meat then the whole case could have been avoided. It made the company unethical by selling a product that resulted in one dead and many sick dogs. 

 References

Meyer, Zlati. "Dog Food Recalled after Discovery of Euthanasia Drug." Detroit Free Press. N.p., 06 Feb. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

"Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts - Evanger's Voluntarily Recalls Hunk of Beef Because Of Pentobarbital Exposure in One Batch of Food." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Office of Regulatory Affairs, 27 Feb. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

"Recalled: Against the Grain Canned Dog Food." Petful. N.p., 17 Feb. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

"Dog Food Recalls Issued Due to Risk of Euthanasia Sedative Contamination."AboutLawsuitscom. N.p., 26 Feb. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.