THE PET FOOD CORPORATE JUNGLE

In the early 2000s, a small pet food company, company X, was contacted by European patent attorneys wanting evidence they could use in a case. They needed proof that probiotics (friendly cultures of bacteria, as in yogurt) were being used on extruded pet foods prior to 1999. A large multinational company, company Big, was seeking a patent for the process in Europe, and these attorneys, representing other pet food companies in Europe that wanted to use probiotics, sued to block their patent.

Company X sent the attorneys packages and literature written in the 1980s proving they had invented the process at least fifteen years before 1999. This evidence stopped the attempt at the European patent since in order to get a patent an idea must be truly novel.

Time passed. Then, in the summer of 2008, company X was contacted by a U.S. patent attorney representing company Big that had tried to get the patent in Europe. He said they had obtained a patent in the U.S. in 1999 and that company X was violating it. The attorney was informed that company X developed this probiotic process 15 years prior to their patent and that there was abundant documentation to prove this.

That didn't matter. Shortly thereafter, a suit was served on company X in an out-of-state federal court alleging patent infringement. Company X went to the patent office and had company Big's patent overturned. Company Big marshaled a fleet of attorneys and went to the patent examiner and had him modify his ruling so that some of the patent remained.

After years of legal fees, the matter was finalized, and as such things go, company X cannot reveal the details. However, thankfully, they are still using probiotic technology to try to make the best pet foods.

Dozens of companies have copied company X, not wanting to lose market share, but in so doing they are all (any applying probiotics to dry extruded pet foods without patent holder consent) in violation of company Big's patent, and as such are selling illegal products. Not only is it illegal for them to sell them, so too is it illegal for their distributors and stores to sell them. Even consumers who buy them are violating patent laws.

Notice how pet health is not a part of this corporate game.

You might wonder why company X did not get the patent first. For the simple reason that patenting is expensive and takes years to do. Then, once you get a patent you have to defend it. More exorbitant legal expenses, time, and energy.

The use of probiotics in pet foods confers many health advantages. Rather than be consumed with legalities and fees, company X felt they should be spending their time and money actually trying to make the best pet food. By contrast, the company who obtained the patent, doesn't even use the technology in their own foods. There goal is evidently to get licensing fees from companies who violate the patent.

This is just a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in industry. You, the consumer, cannot know by simply reading labels who does or does not put health as a priority, or even if you might be using a product that is illegal because it violates a patent.

All the more reason for you to be discerning, not believe things at face value, not extend trust to anyone when health is at stake, and to learn how to become more directly involved if you want the best pet food and health.

Video: "Backpacking" Kitty

William and Laetitia, a couple from France, embarked on a backpacking adventure from Miami to the southernmost city in the world. Along the way they met another party eager to accompany them on their great journey...

Thought for the day: "Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all animals who returned the questionnaire." – Robert Brault

Phrase for the day: 'feed grade' - an ingredient suitable for animal consumption but not for human. This distinction is about aesthetics, not nutrition and health. Many feed grade ingredients are nutritionally superior to their human grade counterparts.