Just who might you be in that regard - a lawyer, a PFC owner, a previous employee of a PFC??? Please provide a lil more info-thx! And not in a PM - post it here for all to read and see.

JJ:

Catherine MacIvor is the lawyer from Maltzman Foreman out of Florida who is handling the lawsuit against pet food companies & their false advertising.  This is a lawsuit that I believe in with all my heart & joined it when I first read about it.

She is our hero......

Ms. MacIvor:

Thanks for posting that.  It seems to me that I remember a little bit of bullying going on.  Nice to know you are there for us.....

Thx for letting others know there is someone out there for support and to help them.

This thread might be of interest to Ms MacIvor, just an example of what we have seen.....

http://itchmoforums.com/news-recall-related/april-24-08-evangers-fda-orders-food-maker-to-obtain-emerg-operating-permit-t4594.15.html

Thanks Cathy,

Shoot, I don't know how many accounts of those type of tactics I've heard in the past year. Usually anytime an independent lab detects toxins in the food. I usually point those in your direction anyhow, but I'll keep it in mind as something in addition to just poisoned pet food issues.

Question on joining your suit:

I was contacted by a fellow in Canada some months back. His cat died after eating a new batch of pet food. He had it tested and the lab he used found both melamine and cyanuric acid. The food was manufactured last July. Can someone from Canada join your suit? Also, as new problems with pet food turn up, are there any technical limitations along the lines of adding new plaintiffs, with new problems, to an existing suit? For example, would the bad guys be able to say the claim didn't exist at the time the suit was filed and has to be kicked out?

Some interesting research:

In working with a pet owner related to suspected problems with Fancy Feast, there are a number of very toxic substances being intentionally added to the food. One of the nastier listed ingredients is cobalt carbonate. It was used as a foam stabilizer in beer up until 1966, when it was banned for use in any food product because it was killing people who drank a lot of beer. The LD 50 is around 300 mg/kg bw. AAFCO publishes a handbook, which I ordered. I'm hoping it has some details on more of the substances being added to pet food.

Also of interest on the topic of AAFCO is it bases the necessary supplements added to pet food on a dry weight basis. I emailed them to get more details on how that would apply to the minimum daily requirements for pets, and received a decidedly evasive answer. I haven't finished researching the matter, but so far it looks like wet food, which is close to 80% water, would only contain 1/5th of what a pet would require to stay healthy, because "dry weight" bears no relationship to "as fed".

Could the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to pet food companies and AAFCO? The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act defines food as anything consumed by humans, pets and other animals. If an outfit like AAFCO, which for all practical purposes amounts to a group of pet food company lobbyists, can circumvent food safety legislation for the benefit of pet food companies, it doesn't seem like pet owners are receiving equal protection under the law.

Whoa--who is being threatened and how?

An anonymous posting on a website is a threat?  When all posts can be traced not only to the ISP but the actual terminal that was used?

I'm confused...

These are not the only examples that I am aware of I am sad to say.  There is nothing that breeds more confidence in a consumer in a product than to receive threatening phone calls and other communications from lawyers designed to intimidate and prevent free speech. Apparently the informed, intelligent and the curious consumer is somehow threatening to some. 

Thanks Klondike.  The post was directed at anyone, not just those in lawsuits.  It is deplorable behavior.