While we cannot weigh in on the pros and cons of one pet food diet versus another, the pet food industry is highly unregulated and the following quote from “Pet FooLEd” (a documentary about the pet food industry) unfortunately rings true:
“When death or sickness is involved, the cards appear to be stacked against consumers. This is because according to the United States Government, your beloved companion is considered property that is worth little to no monetary value. It’s very difficult to put a value on companion animals. The courts have struggled with this. Where it really comes down to a struggle is what are the damages to somebody who has had a pet that has been injured or killed. For the most part, they’re still considered a piece of property. Most courts are willing to just do the quickest possible analysis which is, you know, what did you pay for the animal? How much did you suffer in terms of veterinary – veterinarian bills or that kind of thing in terms of caring for the animal? And, you know, that’s what you’re able to recover, rather than those sort of emotional connection that you have with the animal or that kind of thing.
In 2015, government agencies value human life between $6 and $9 million to provide some leverage to consumers in the unfortunate case that injury or death were to occur. In contrast, within the pet food world, no such evaluation exists. Even in the largest of class-action lawsuits, the money awarded to victims whose pets have been directly harmed by pet food, is insignificant when compared to the massive profits that companies make each year. So as far as profits are involved, there is no incentive for companies to do what consumers believe is the right thing.”
Courts will continue to undervalue companion animals until they are challenged, repeatedly. Unfortunately most owners are unable to raise their matters to this level because of cost – and therefore all animals lose. Because courts don’t recognize their value, there is no monetary incentive on the pet food industry, or any other business involved in animal care, to proceed with extreme caution.
While a complete disconnect exists between courts only seeing animals as property and owners seeing companion animals as priceless, enter Sebastian Gay, a PhD economist who published a formula in 2011 for the “companion animal capital” which lies somewhere between the “fair market value” assessed by courts and the “emotional value” claimed by owners. His paper is linked below. While this may seem to undermine the “companion animals are priceless” notion, there is some thought behind utilizing both concepts simultaneously. “Companion animal capital” may initially see greater headway with courts, while fighting for emotional damages has a steeper hill to climb, but the groundwork still needs to be laid before the courts eventually come around.
Please help us stand up for animals. Every case fought on behalf of an animal is a step towards laying that groundwork for a future where animals are valued in a way we know they deserve.
