For several years, from 2018 to 2022, the FDA investigated a potential link between specific diets and a serious heart condition in dogs called dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The diet-related DCM investigation was prompted by an uptick in veterinarian reports. However, on December 23, 2022, the FDA announced it was stopping its investigation due to insufficient scientific evidence. Despite this, early concerns about these diets—dubbed by the DCM researchers as “boutique”, “exotic” and “grain-free” (BEG)—caused significant consumer backlash and financial damage to the manufacturers of these foods. As someone who creates fresh, plant-based diets for dogs, I’ve seen firsthand the anxiety in clients worried about harming their dogs’ hearts based on their vets’ advice against plant-based diets.
Well, guess what? As many of us have suspected for years, there may be more — way more — to the diet-related DCM story than originally thought. In fact, the real story may just be beginning.
The Lawsuit
On Tuesday, February 6, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a prominent consumer protection law firm, filed a lawsuit on behalf of KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, which is part of the Colgate-Palmolive family. The lawsuit also includes a group of veterinarians who led the diet-related DCM fear-mongering (Lisa M. Freeman, Darcy B. Adin, Joshua A. Stern, Ryan C. Fries and John E. Rush) in addition to the Morris Animal Foundation and Mark Morris Institute.
KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. vs. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. et. al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleges a coordinated effort by Hill’s and its affiliates to deceive American pet owners regarding the risks associated with grain-free dog food products. At the heart of the matter is the claim that Hill’s and its collaborators propagated misinformation linking grain-free diets to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a severe and potentially fatal heart condition in canines.
Central to the lawsuit’s argument is the accusation that Hill’s and its associated veterinarians intentionally manipulated data presented to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to induce an investigation into the purported link between grain-free diets and DCM. This alleged manipulation led to widespread media coverage and public panic, causing a significant downturn in the market for grain-free pet foods.
KetoNatural Pet Foods, a Utah-based startup specializing in low-carbohydrate dog food products, serves as the plaintiff in the case. The company asserts that its business suffered substantial losses as a result of the false claims perpetuated by Hill’s and its collaborators. Seeking class-action status for hundreds of affected companies with combined annual revenues exceeding $10 billion, KetoNatural emphasizes the extensive evidence gathered from customers who abandoned their products due to concerns over the purported DCM linkage.
Furthermore, the lawsuit sheds light on additional deceptive practices, including alleged efforts by Hill’s to disparage smaller competitors selling “non-traditional” pet foods. By disseminating false statements regarding the safety of so-called BEG diets, Hill’s purportedly diverted billions of dollars in business towards its own products.
In response to the allegations, Hill’s Pet Nutrition has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, asserting its commitment to operating with integrity. The company vows to vigorously defend its position against the accusations in the lawsuit.
This legal challenge sheds light on the deeper issues within the pet food industry, including how large companies might use their influence to sway consumer preferences and harm smaller competitors. As this case unfolds, it may set a precedent for how companies engage in competitive practices and the importance of integrity in marketing and scientific communication.
My Thoughts
I applaud KetoNaturals, a small company, for taking a stand against Hill’s, a corporate giant. Regardless of how this lawsuit plays out, I hope it will serve as a deterrent against future corporate misinformation and unfair competition tactics. I also hope it will remind veterinarians and researchers that their first duty is to the health of companion animals, not the financial gain of themselves or any particular corporation.