Swords in dog food? Well, not literally of course though stuff appearing in dog food that should not be there is not as rare as we would like.

In the wake of the recent dog food recall in the US at least 50 class action lawsuits have been filed. Also, Assembly Deputy Speaker Neil Cohen proposed legislation A.B. 4217 in New Jersey to pave the road for dog owners to sue for the loss of companionship when their furry friend died as a result of contaminated dog food. New Jersey would then join Illinois and Tennessee where such lawsuits are allowed in certain cases.

The strange thing is that when your canine companion dies as a result of dog food poisoning your dog is classified as property under US law and you get the replacement value as if your beloved pet was just a TV that died. In contrast, animal abuse or theft of pets can be punished with fines and even jail time.

Legislation A.B. 4217 passed unanimously by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committe late May. However the Pet Food Institute (PFI) and Veterinarian Associations NJVMA and AVMA had reservations. Neil Cohen amended the proposal and capped damages at 15,000 US dollars plus he removed language referring to emotional distress suffered by the dog’s human family members.

Pet Food Institute objects because the bill singles out pet food with respect to liability and needs more time to understand the effects of such potential penalties.

Veterinarians are concerned that allowing this bill can result in financial damages when dogs die of other causes such as a vaccine reaction or a surgery that did not go well.

That’s the double edged sword. Pet food manufacturers and veterinarians benefit financially from the increased love and care Americans express for their furry family members. For instance, economy brands dog food are replaced by premium or super-premium dog food. These non-economic lawsuits are just THE OTHER SIDE.

And so we now have a discussion whether a dog is more like a TV or more like a loved family member.