I’m not surprised at all. Google Rachel Ray and “dog bites.” They tried to cover that up four different times, so nothing she does surprises me. Just because someone donates to animals doesn’t make them an honorable person.
Being an honorable person has nothing to do with it. The claim is that the food is labeled all natural with no artificial flavors or preservatives. Glyphosate is neither a flavor or preservative. All natural would be the the phrase that would cause a problem. Let's just agree that glyphosate isn't natural so that would be a loss in court.
The point I was making is why single out this one brand. I imagine as time goes by lawyers will have other pet foods tested for glyphosate and they too will come back testing positive for glyphosate. The key factor here is no one has said just how much glyphosate. As I stated, the stuff in all sorts of food stuffs. The splashy headlines are just a scare tactic to insight fear in pet owners to not by that brand. When in all likelyhood it is present in many pet foods in the same or similar levels.
My issue is that the media is making it sound like this is some sort of deliberate add of the chemical and/or the company knew it was there and deliberately considered to hid its presence. The fact is we don't if any pet food companies have ever test for it. Human food manufacturers don't disclose it's presence because they meet the FDA threshold guidelines for ppm or ppb and it's permissible.
I have doubt gyphosate is routinely tested for (if at all) in pet food. Not on their radar. Nutrish didn't say the food was organic. Do they need to correct their labeling? Probably. Nutrish is not the only pet food that uses the term "Natural" in branding. Let's test those brands and even the playing field is all I'm saying. If one looks hard enough something bad can be found in almost every food product.
I'm not trying to defend Rachael Ray, the manufacturer, or any one. I'm just trying to point out that this is just another media blitz with few facts presented only to create hysteria about one company that could have devastating effects on that company and in turn the charities it supports in a biased, unfair fashion.
I just see this as judging in the media before full facts are disclosed. I also don't necessarily see this as a company trying to deliberately deceive consumers. I see it as a "it never came to mind" kinda of thing. Now it's coming to mind.
And let's not overlook the fact the person suing is asking for 5 million dollars. Seems like a lot of money and no claim of health damage to his dog. Just because he believes he was deliberately deceived. The man is himself eating glyphosate every time he bites into a sandwich made with natural wheat. Just saying. He'll sue them next if he think of it. Soon he could be rich man.