Mars sued over Greenies ‘#1 Vet Recommended’ claim, says it’s baloney
Judge orders Mars Inc. to substantiate claims in false advertising suit over dental dog chew Greenies.
In a lawsuit filed last week, pet care giant Mars, Inc. stands accused of deceiving and misleading dog owners with a claim that its Greenies dental chews purportedly are the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew.”
Netherlands-based Paragon Pet Products Europe B.V. alleges that Mars’s claim that Greenies is the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” is unsubstantiated and false. A footnote on the back panel of the packaging suggests that Greenies is not, in fact, recommended by most or even a majority of veterinarians.
Specifically, Greenies claims that they are “The #1 Vet-Recommended Dental Chews and Treats*”
“* In pet specialty stores, among U.S. veterinarians who recommend dental chews and treats for at-home oral care.”
Meanwhile, on Monday, the judge hearing the case in the Southern District of New York granted Paragon’s application for an order directing Mars to produce:
“all substantiation (e.g., documents, reports, studies, data, emails, and so forth” for the claim, “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew.”
A hearing has been set for July 28 to consider next steps – including Paragon’s request for preliminary injunctive relief against Mars.
Paragon’s complaint seeks an injunction requiring Mars to halt further use of the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” claim, to offer refunds to deceived purchasers of Greenies dental chews, and to correct and abate prior false advertising statements, including by correction or recall of Greenies retail packaging which contains the “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” claim. Paragon is also seeking monetary relief.
This is not the first time Greenies has been the subject of a lawsuit. One in particular, involved dogs who died after being fed the “top-selling pet treat in the country.” The problem comes because the treat become lodged in a dog’s esophagus or intestine and then some veterinarians say they don’t break down. Brendan McKiernan, a board-certified veterinary internal medicine specialist from Denver, Colorado, told CNN:
“I know they are marketed in saying that they do digest. Certainly the ones that we’ve taken out, esophageal or intestinal, that have been in for days are still very hard.”
The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Months after the lawsuit was settled, however, Mars reformulated the treats supposedly making them “easier for dogs to chew and digest.” The new-and-improved treats were to have a chewier texture and “break points” built in to help dogs crunch the treats into smaller, easier-to-swallow pieces. The ingredients were also changed to break down more quickly in the stomach.
Lets wait and see whether Mars can actually produce evidence that supports their “#1 Vet Recommended Dental Chew” claim.
Paragon Pets is being represented by the law firm of Hughes Hubbard and Reed intellectual property partner James W. Dabney.
Source: Paragon Pet Products Europe B.V. vs. Mars Inc.
Pet Food Safety News publishes reader-supported investigative reporting on commercial pet food, industry practices, and regulatory issues affecting consumers. It has no financial ties to pet food companies. Donations help fund the research, writing, and publishing costs behind this work and support continued reporting on transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the pet food industry. If you value this reporting, please consider making a donation.
Discover more from Pet Food Safety News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
12 Comments
Vicki
Personally, I feel the best way to clean your dogs teeth is to use doggie toothpaste & a toothbrush daily to remove plaque buildup!
Paula
Personally, I can’t believe that Greenies is still on the market. After the comment of the CEO/owner years back when so many dogs were dying….something along the lines of “We claim they are edible, not digestible”……. I was astounded by the arrogance and lack of concern of the company. Now I’m just amazed that people still by the crap.
Ann*
A few years back, after checking with my vet about the indigestibility of Greenies, she informed me that the chews had been reformulated to correct that problem. She did not recommend the treats to me, simply answered my question regarding the safety of feeding them.
I bought lots of Greenies but didn’t keep receipts so I guess if they are ordered to repay consumers I won’t have any documentation of my purchases. About a year ago I learned that Greenies were not very helpful in keeping dog teeth clean so I stopped purchasing them.
I have talked to many vets over the past three years and not one has recommended Greenies. It will be interesting to watch this case develop.
Tina Mendeloff
Check here: http://www.vohc.org/
Dr. Jean
Here is what AAFCO requires for a “veterinarian-recommended” claim; it will be interesting to see what documentation Mars produces to substantiate it:
Can I put “vet recommended” on a label? If so, what are the requirements? Is that determined by each individual state, or is this something there is a consensus on?
The AAFCO Pet Food Committee (PFC) has discussed this issue. AAFCO Model Regulations for Pet Food and Specialty Pet Food Regulations, Regulation PF2(f) states, “A personal or commercial endorsement is permitted on a pet food or specialty pet food label provided the endorsement is not false or misleading.”
First of all, this regulation allows you to include endorsements on product labels. What this regulation does not tell you is how do you support such an endorsement as “veterinarian recommended” so that the claim is not false or misleading. The AAFCO Pet Food Committee has determined that a statistically sound survey of veterinarians would be adequate to support such a claim as “veterinarian recommended.” This means surveying one or two veterinarians is not adequate. So how many veterinarians should you survey? I can’t tell you that, since there is so much variation in determining “statistically sound”.
I would think that the number of veterinarians should be relevant to the product type, what similar product is your product being compared to (i.e., this product is recommended over what other product?), the number of customers you would normally expect to buy your product, and then the number of veterinarians who would normally handle that number of customers. I’ve seen companies’ data that included survey results from about 300 or so veterinarians. The survey questions were not lengthy, and I believe the products were complete and balanced products. There is no set format for a survey, but whatever you use, it should be able to support your claim. State control officials may ask for data to substantiate any claims that are made on product labels.
It should be pointed out that while “veterinarian recommended” requires a survey of a statistically sound number of veterinarians who recommend your product, it only takes one veterinarian to support the claim “veterinarian formulated”, or “veterinarian developed”, assuming that fact can be sufficiently documented.