DEAR READERS: The following is an excerpt from a blog post by Susan Thixton (truthaboutpetfood.com/prescription-pet-food-lawsuit-will-continue/).
“An appeals court in California has ruled that a lawsuit against prescription pet foods’ ‘deceptive practice’ will continue. This is a big win for pet owners.
“The California District Court dismissed the lawsuit in 2017, but in July 2020, the California Appeals Court ruled ‘the district court erred in dismissing’ this important lawsuit. An excerpt from the ruling: ‘The panel concluded that under the reasonable consumer test, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the sale of the prescription pet food exclusively through vets or with veterinarian approval was a deceptive practice. In addition, plaintiffs satisfied the heightened pleading standard for fraud because they alleged sufficient facts to show that prescription pet food and other pet food were not materially different.’”
Dr. Fox here. For more details about the limitations of many of these costly special prescription diets for dogs and cats, and the irony that most would not be warranted if animals were fed biologically appropriate diets to begin with, see “Not Fit for a Dog: The Truth About Manufactured Cat and Dog Foods.” This book was written by myself and two other veterinarians: former Hill’s pet food company vet Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins and veterinary professor Dr. Marion E. Smart.
DEAR DR. FOX: In regard to the recent column headlined “Agnostic angry, feels called out”: I read your column in the Palm Beach Post, and I find it to be helpful, informative and enjoyable. Please keep up the good work. I would not have written to you except for the column referenced above: It was excellent. It is disheartening to see that K.P. of Naples decided to politicize the Golden Rule. -- P.D., West Palm Beach, Florida
DEAR P.D.: Thank you for your words of support for some of my opinions, which I feel professionally and ethically impelled to express in these times of socioeconomic, public and environmental health crises.
Some other readers disagree, writing to me that I have been “brainwashed”, and that my “left-wing,” “communist” political agenda is evident in my columns.
It saddens me that people are so set in their points of view that they are cognitively impaired, feeling threatened when their values, actions and harmful consequences of the same are questioned. A life unexamined is a life unlived, and leads to the rationalization and denial of the harmful consequences of one’s beliefs, values and actions as they affect others -- human or not.
I offer a note of optimism in my essay “The Second Coming? Existential Reality of Global Environmental Crisis,” posted on my website (drfoxonehealth.com).
A STEP IN THE RIGHT DRECTION FOR PET SUPPLY STORES
The Reno (Nevada) City Council approved an ordinance banning the sale of dogs and cats at retail stores, though the stores may still provide space for organizations that offer dogs and cats for adoption. Home breeders may also continue selling dogs and cats. (Full story: ThisIsReno.com, 7/29)
DOG IN LOUISIANA TESTS POSITIVE FOR SARS-COV-2
The first animal to test positive for the virus in the U.K. was a cat whose owners had COVID-19, had mild symptoms and quickly recovered. Cats are prone to various coronaviruses and may have some cross-immunity to other strains, as do people.
The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry has reported that a pet dog tested positive for a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence is emerging that people can, in rare cases, transmit the novel coronavirus to animals during close contact, and anyone with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should avoid close contact with pets. (Full story: TheAdvocate.com, 8/4)
(Send all mail to firstname.lastname@example.org or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.
Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)