Nabiya,
Offy basically threatened legal action against the manager of the store for slander against an individual (Donna). If I hadn't been asked to remove the original post, I would invite all to re-read it. The manager was not slanderous in anyway, but only asked that condemnation not be made until more is known. At the time the manager e-mailed me, all that had surfaced was Donna's one lab report, not the 100 other complaints that have since followed. The manager never once said the disbelieves Donna's report, or anything of that such. If Offy feels the need to go after someone, he should focus his attention on Natura, not a mom and pop business in the Midwest. I have seen Offy's e-mail, and it was uncalled for, and the anger misdirected.
Excuse me? Threatened legal action? So NOT. Did you note that I also had the audacity to send it to PAtkins? Did you note that I did not mention the "private citizens" name? One email, yes and as I stated I was in a foul mood. Harassment? I don't think so. No excuse, maybe, but the Natura party line is old. They use Customer Service reps, Supplier reps to spread it. IMO. Did I respond back to his tirade? No. There is ample confirmation in his reponse to show that the statements were from a Natura rep, and I clearly stated my awareness of that in my email.
I hope he sent my email to you. If he did, I'll be happy to post the entire email and response here... I take it he has no compunction about what
he does with another's email?
I have seen Offy's e-mail, and it was uncalled for, and the anger misdirected.
I missed that...
Hello,
I just read your response to one of your customers. IMO, and I am not a lawyer, your email and the statements from the Natura representative border on defamation by the repetition of information unsupported by any document or press release smearing a private citizen for consumer commentary without justification other than they (Natura) "dislike" the results of a laboratory report that was positive for cyanuric acid and acetaminophen in a customer's pet food- and that is documented.
As you well know, a private citizen and free speech finds relief in a court of law for being slandered and defamed by a company. If you need a recap of the laws of consumer commentary, I can gladly provide that to you.
Apparently Natura needs a lesson in that also. Just because I am in a particularly foul mood from reading the slurs and campaign by Natura to so egregiously slander and tarnish the reputation of the person who had received a laboratory report and has posted consumer commentary in a very subdued and noninflammatory manner, I'm going to put a couple of legal lessons below. Natura, instead of dealing with the situation at hand and your gushing their more than questionable public relations feces needs some food for thought and so do you. Their distraction has failed, they have totally underestimated their customer base and the intelligence of the pet owners. They, IMO, have dug a hole that will drive more customers off than the lab report.
1) They have had other complaints as noted by those persons themselves on the forums - and not just Itchmo.
2) The lab will not release information due to confidentiality - Natura is not the client that has access to the information, and the lab report has been posted for viewing. (Documented)
3) American sourced? This is a word game. Purchased from a US Supplier? Menu Foods can make a statement as worthless as that one.
4) Redux of #1. . The citizen reported the results of an FDA accredited laboritory. You would see that this statement by the Natura rep is false and misleading. If you viewed the lab report (the citizen's name is not ExperTox. .
(You need to see the recap to be able to view the pictures you must be logged into the forum - and you will note that 2 pictures are on a another forum and most people were unaware of that. See also CBS report)
http://itchmoforums.com/index.php?topic=1028.msg15902#msg15902.
5) There is no documentation to provide proof of that claim/assertion. The FDA and ASPCA, CVM have said there in no widespread contamination. They did NOT say there is no contamination. Read and be truthful. I truly doubt that the FDA or the ASPCA will certify Natura's food. The Pet Food Industry is self regulated. As far as samples, the FDA has tested approximately 5. ExperTox 100-150 samples.
You, my dear young man, have had your chain jerked.Regards,
Offy
I have not heard any complaints about Natura products personally, but I did contact my representative at Natura to find
out more information.
She assured me that they have not heard any 1)compaints other than the one they were alerted to on this website. Furthermore, the 2) lab that supposedly detected acetaminophen in the food will not confirm those findings with Natura. Natura has sent samples from that lot to three labs and has received a negative finding from one and is still avaiting results from the other two. They said they were confident that nothing will show up in the samples that shouldn't be in there. Also, she reminded me that all of their ingredients are 3) American sourced. The unfortunate effect that this is having
is that people are condemning a highly reputable company based on 4) one private individual's testimony. 5) The FDA and ASPCA have both concluded that Natura is free from any contamination. I would ask that you please suspend judgement until we learn more. In the meantime, continue to feed Wellness if you have concerns about Innova. They have had no contamination problems and are a great company.
seeking to punish .. for participation in public forums based upon the content of her speech; such action constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. 1983 prohibits the violation of constitutional rights, Freedom of Speech and Expressive Association under color of state law.
In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation v Andrew S Faber, (C.D.Ca. 1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1167, the Court stated, Here, however, Faber is using Bally's mark in the context of a consumer commentary to say that Bally engages in business practices which Faber finds distasteful or unsatisfactory. This is speech protected by the First Amendment. ... As such, Faber can use Bally's mark to identify the source of the goods or services of which he is complaining. This use is necessary to maintain broad opportunities for expression...."
Because plaintiff's site did not incite or produce imminent lawless action, the Court held that defendant was not entitled to the injunction
sought. "Plaintiff's verbal pyrotechnics have surely been offensive but ...
- ffensive speech -- even if it 'stirs people to anger' -- is
ordinarily protected."
