Student Animal Legal Defense Fund

AN ACT to amend 813.12 (1) (am) (intro.) and 813.12 (1) (am) 6.; and to create 813.12 (1) (ab), 813.12 (1) (am) 4. and 813.12 (1) (f) of the statutes; relating to: extending domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions to include abuse to animals and threats of abuse to animals.

Under current law, "domestic abuse" is defined as actions by an adult family or household member, an adult caregiver, an adult former spouse, an adult in a current or former dating relationship, or an adult parent of a child in common with another person intentionally to inflict physical pain, physical injury, or illness upon another
family or household member, intentionally to impair the physical condition of the
other person, to commit sexual assault on the other person, to commit criminal
damage to the property of the other person, or to threaten to commit any of those acts against the other person.

A victim of domestic abuse may petition the court to obtain first a restraining order and then an injunction against the family or household member who committed the domestic abuse.

This bill would expand the definition of domestic abuse to include harm or threat of harm to the animals owned by the petitioner, the respondent, either of their children, or household members. It provides an exception for actions taken to animals for legitimate and necessary agricultural or veterinary purposes.

TUESDAY, March 20 (HealthDay News) -- The official pet death toll inched up Tuesday as U.S. health officials continued to look for the contamination source that spurred a massive recall of moist dog and cat food involving some of the top brand names.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so far there have been 14 dogs and cats that died within a few days of consuming the pet food made by a Canadian company.

The toll included nine cats in the manufacturer's quarterly taste test that involved up to 50 animals, along with four pet dogs and one pet cat, according to the FDA's lead veterinarian. However, he added, the toll is expected to rise.

"We are reviewing the manufacturing process of [the] food," Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said during a press conference. "We are still looking at the wheat gluten and other ingredients."

Sundlof said the FDA continues to receive a large volume of calls at its consumer complaint lines. The number of calls has not yet been tabulated or evaluated, he said, but "we know that some of them are complaints of deaths."

The cause of the pet deaths has not been determined, although all those that died developed kidney failure after eating the affected product, the FDA said.

The pet food manufacturer, Ontario-based Menu Foods Inc., had suggested the illnesses might be linked to their use of a new supplier of wheat gluten, a protein used in the foods. FDA officials said they weren't sure if wheat gluten is responsible or which company supplied the wheat gluten.

In addition, the agency isn't sure that only pet food was contaminated. "Right now, we don't think people are at risk," Sundlof had said at a Monday teleconference.

Menu Foods announced the recall over the weekend for 60 million packages of moist pet food made at a plant in Emporia, Kan., and another in New Jersey between Dec. 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007.

The FDA is responsible for checking pet food plants, Sundlof said Tuesday. "It is very much the same as how we regulate human food plants," he said. "Inspections are based on how risky we think the plant is based on previous inspection."

David Elder, director of the Office of Enforcement at the FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs, added, "The first time the FDA had been in the Kansas plant was in follow-up to these consumer complaints. The New Jersey plant was inspected last year under FDA's Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mad cow] program."

The recalled pet food was sold in sealed packets in the United States, Canada and Mexico under 50 brand names of dog food and 40 brand names of cat food.

The brands include Iams, Science Diet, America's Choice, Preferred Pets, Eukanuba, and Nutriplan. The stores that sold them include Ahold USA Inc., Kroger Co., Safeway, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., PetSmart Inc. and Pet Valu Inc. A full list can be seen at the Menu Foods Web site at www.menufoods.com/recall.

Dogs or cats that have eaten the suspect food and show signs of kidney failure should be taken to a veterinarian. According to the FDA, kidney failure in animals is characterized by loss of appetite, lethargy and vomiting.

The agency is also requesting that people with sick or deceased pets who believe their pet might have consumed one of the implicated products contact a state complaint coordinator. A list of coordinators can be found at the FDA Web site (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html).

The FDA and the Humane Society advise consumers who have any of these products to stop feeding them to their pets.

Menu Foods has a consumer recall hotline at 1-866-895-2708.

The company has announced that it will compensate the owners of pets that died.

Madisonian joins pet food suit:

A Madison woman has joined a class-action lawsuit against a Canadian pet food maker after racking up more than $3,000 in medical bills for her cat, which she says was harmed by food blamed for 14 animal deaths so far.

Jacqueline Johnson joined a class-action suit filed Tuesday in federal court in Madison by the Progressive Law Group, alleging that Menu Foods Inc. sold dangerous pet food resulting in Johnson's cat Gumbie getting seriously ill before recovering in February.

The saga of dozens of pit bulls that were once considered evidence in a criminal trial and have been held for months at the Dane County Humane Society is finally reaching a conclusion.

Under a deal reached Tuesday, the society is paying $9,000 to take ownership of the animals from Robert Lowery, who is in a federal prison hospital, and Julie Dzikowich, who lives in the couple's town of Dunn home. The terms of the agreement have also been approved by Dane County officials and the District Attorney's Office.

The federal Pet Safety and Protection Act, S. 714/H.R. 1280, would prohibit Class B Dealers and unlicensed individuals from selling dogs and cats to research laboratories.

Class B Dealers are people who collect dogs and cats from random sources and sell them to the research industry. They sometimes obtain their animals through illegal or unethical means, such as by responding to "free to good home" ads in newspapers, falsifying records to keep the true origins of the animals unknown, and stealing pets kept outside in yards.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act would provide a much-needed safety net to ensure beloved pets are not stolen or acquired under false pretenses and sold to research laboratories.

What You Can Do
Please visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center to send a letter to your representative and senators urging them to support and cosponsor The Pet Safety and Protection Act. You may use the same link to read about this legislation in greater depth.