# Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare

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
  Edit request implemented   

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)

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)
  Edit request implemented  

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