Blue Buffalo 32 m settlement

Blue Buffalo touted itself as the best ....no by-products

It was just a simple account error and some mis-labeling.

Just like back in 2007 due to a deceitful supplier they had 'melamine' in 1/3 of their products

True in advertisement.......HA
Great concept but rarely adhered to by any mfg. of any product

The false advertising class action lawsuits took issue with Blue Buffalo’s “True Blue Promise” label, which indicates the product contains no poultry byproduct meals; no corn, wheat or soy; and no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives. According to the plaintiffs, several investigations have indicated that those ingredients are present in products with the “True Blue Promise” label.

According to the Blue Buffalo class action lawsuits, consumers paid a premium for the Blue Buffalo products with the “True Blue Promise” label because they were falsely advertised as having better quality ingredients than many other pet foods on the market.

My issue is not JUST truth in advertising that was the issue in the law suit. Their big premise "no byproducts" is a better food is not supported by OVERWHELMING nutritional evidence that is out there. Just because they advertise it and say it, doesn't make it true or accurate. Just plain deceitful.

Doug, DVM

I have to admit, I drank the kool-aid. In fact, I'm sure that's why I got an email direct from BB. I had written years ago for a $5-off coupon. It was nothing for us to go to PetSmart and drop a C-note for a couple of bags of dog kibble and a bag of senior cat food. Our pets liked the brand and we thought we were doing our best for them, as all were older pets. I don't think BB did our pets any harm, and they're all gone now. All of our vets disdained the brand, which we did discontinue using.

CA POPPY wrote:
... I don't think BB did our pets any harm, and they're all gone now. All of our vets disdained the brand, which we did discontinue using.

I don't think BB is a bad food. I just don't believe they are better just because they claim to have not by products, etc. Very deceptive.

Asking people if they would serve byproducts to their family. Come on, ever heard of pork rinds, pigs feet, sweet breads, poultry giblets (heart, gizzard, liver), tongue, reticulum, natural sausage casing, brain, rocky mountain oysters, LIVER.

Who really is the definitive source for knowing what canned(or any) dog food is rated? I like to be an informed consumer and one site I was led to was "Dog Food Adviser" who has a ton of different foods rated by content. Blue Buffalo/Blue Wilderness has always been a highly rated product by them but with this resulting lawsuit, I have to question the "Dog Food Adviser" web site. I'm going to switch back to Newman's canned food for now..but I'd love to have an idea as to the real winner when it comes to "truth in Advertising". DR. Doug???

dturm wrote:

CA POPPY wrote:
... I don't think BB did our pets any harm, and they're all gone now. All of our vets disdained the brand, which we did discontinue using.

I don't think BB is a bad food. I just don't believe they are better just because they claim to have not by products, etc. Very deceptive.

Asking people if they would serve byproducts to their family. Come on, ever heard of pork rinds, pigs feet, sweet breads, poultry giblets (heart, gizzard, liver), tongue, reticulum, natural sausage casing, brain, rocky mountain oysters, LIVER.

Well...I for one have eaten ALL of those 'by-products' and LIVER is the only one that there is not enough onions/catsup to smother the taste with :B

Menudo is not the only common form of 'reticulum'
Every had Andouille ?

I don;t even think it was the deletion of icky parts that was the selling point for me. It was more the beautiful commercials, the whole sales pitch and the idea that the higher price meant quality. This and the fact that our dogs and cat LOVED BB, had no issues with it and seemed to do well on it. All of which makes me one of the "eligible" aka soft-touch, pet owners who qualify for the big $5 or $10 refund.

I must say my two dogs don't like it. I am beginning to think they only want table food. I have tried to buy them some thing they like but I am having trouble finding that one food.

Acampingwewillgo wrote:
Who really is the definitive source for knowing what canned(or any) dog food is rated? I like to be an informed consumer and one site I was led to was "Dog Food Adviser" who has a ton of different foods rated by content. Blue Buffalo/Blue Wilderness has always been a highly rated product by them but with this resulting lawsuit, I have to question the "Dog Food Adviser" web site. I'm going to switch back to Newman's canned food for now..but I'd love to have an idea as to the real winner when it comes to "truth in Advertising". DR. Doug???

IMO there is no definitive site, just as there is no definitive ranking for what constitutes "good" or "bad" human food. My guess is that Dog Food Adviser appeals to people because it's so simplistic (although perhaps misleading) in listing what are (supposedly) "good" and "bad" foods. Who doesn't understand the five star system?

And yet they list many five star foods I wouldn't feed to my pets if I were given a free lifetime supply.

The "problem" is complex. Human nutrition is complex. Are carbs good or evil? Depends on who you ask, and the nutritional needs of that person. For a diabetic too many simple carbs certainly aren't good. For someone who needs a high fiber diet complex carbs are great.

A confounding factor as I see it is that veterinary nutritionists seem to just look at nutrient profiles. As long as the nutrient profile is met, most of those that I've read don't seem to think it matters what foods are being used to meet those profiles. OTOH the "all natural" crowd tends to think the foods used matter a lot. Just as with human nutrition where the more natural crowd would prefer to get their Vitamin C from organically grown oranges (eating the entire fruit, not just drinking the juice) and those who are only interested in meeting their RDA for Vitamin C are fine with mixing up some Tang in a glass of tap water. Is one of them right or wrong, or are both approaches equally acceptable? After all, they both meet the RDA for Vitamin C. In the end is that all that matters? Or does the quality or amount of processing of the source matter?

I don't like to see big pet food companies vilified because much (if not all) of what we know about canine and feline nutrition we know because of the research those companies have done or funded over the years. That's not a small thing! Do I think they could do a better job of providing higher quality products? Yep.

One article I do like is this one from The Dog Food Project. It wasn't written in response to Dog Food Adviser's rating system, but in response to a silly grading "system" that made the Internet rounds long before the DFA site ever existed. I don't like it because I necessarily agree with all of it, but because it points out how nuanced and arbitrary it can be to figure out what ingredients are "good" or "bad."

Pawz writes a well thought out response and it's pretty much right along with my thinking.

A good pet food is the one your pet does well on. You can't judge that by any rating system, it's a trial and error.

It used to be (20-30 years ago) the higher the price, the more consistent the sourcing of ingredients thus the more consistent results in feeding. Now days so many boutique food companies have gotten into the field that that may not be the case.

I generally don't like dog food advisor because I don't agree with their basic premise on what's good and what's bad. That site does a very good job describing what byproducts are and their actual nutritional value, but I strongly disagree with their conclusion that the use of byproducts is an indication that all the other ingredients are more likely to be inferior.

The bottom line is that it goes down to how reputable the company is and how reliable they are in sourcing their ingredients and how religious they are in production protocols and how they formulate and determine "complete" diets.

There is great benefit in the research that has been done and the years of experience by the major food companies (purina, hill's, royal canin, mars, etc.) in evaluating the nutritional needs for many different animal species.