Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare

Redundancy
I am affiliated with the article-subject and have a disclosed COI. I noticed the current article, under History/Legal issues has two redundant sentences referring to the same lawsuit: "In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina, claiming that the dog food manufactured by the company was hazardous for pets." Later in that section the page states: "In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina. It alleged that the company's Beneful brand of dog food contained toxic ingredients. Purina said these ingredients were FDA-approved."

They both seem to be referring to the same lawsuit. I suggest keeping the second one and trimming the first sentence, as the second reference to the lawsuit has more detail and better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 12:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply 2-APR-2019

 * I've removed the first mention of this and kept the second mention. But I removed the claim from Purina that these ingredients are FDA approved. The mycotoxins are produced by mold found in grains. It is this toxin — and not the grain itself — which is being blamed for the pet illnesses.  Spintendo  04:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Class Action
The current article-text states:

"In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina alleging that the company's Beneful brand of dog food contained toxins produced by mold found in grains — grain being a major ingredient in Beneful.[35][36]"

It seems to flow logically that the article should include the fact that the case was dismissed. Can we add something like the following?

"The lawsuit was later changed to a claim of false advertising rather than harm to pets, but eventually all claims against Nestlé Purina were dismissed by the court."

CorporateM (Talk) 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I added more info to clarify what happened, with a better non-adblock-blocked source. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)