“This post contains affiliate links, and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.”
We’ve all got a favorite grocery store, the one that we trust to carry safe, healthy, fresh food to feed our families. We buy with confidence that item plucked from the shelf or produce stand will be safe to feed, that our grocer has sourced from the very best suppliers and avoided those with a known history of recalls, complaints, and customer concerns.
If our favorite grocery store repeatedly sold foods that were known to be dangerous we’d probably shop elsewhere. We’d hold them accountable.
So, since dogs are family, shouldn’t we be require that same accountability from pet food and treat retailers?
Retailers are a vital link between pet food manufacturers and consumers. Having a product on the shelf in our favorite store, a store we trust, gives that product credibility.
If the store I trust sells it, it must be safe.
However, this isn’t always the case. Despite hundreds of dog deaths, FDA warnings, and consumer complaints, chicken jerky treats, even those imported from China, are still big sellers at major retail stores.
Despite ongoing lawsuits that question the safety of a popular dog food, one that has allegedly claimed the life of thousands of dogs, Purina’s Beneful still lines store shelves.
Despite 5 years of complaints, multiple reports of dog death and illness, repeated warnings from the FDA and the Better Business Bureau, Walmart stores continue to sell the “Real Ham Bone” dog treat to consumers that trust that they’re buying a safe product.
At what point do we, as consumers and dog parents, hold retailers accountable for what they’re selling? Should retailers that continue to sell dog food and treats that are known to be dangerous be held responsible? Would you stop shopping at a favorite store if they refused to stop selling a dangerous dog food or treat – even if you aren’t buying it, but other pet parents are?
Weigh in with a comment below.