Hospitals & Asylums    




In Re: Menu Foods Recall HA-26-3-07

By Anthony J. Sanders

Recall Information 1-866-895-2708 

Stock Quote


Last updated:

  16:14 (EST)



Previous Close


Last Buyer

Anonymous Broker

Last Seller

Standard Securities Capital Corp.













Last bid


Bid size


Last ask


Ask size


52 wk high


52 wk low




Dividend date







1. Menu is the leading North American private-label/contract manufacturer of wet pet food products sold by supermarket retailers, mass merchandisers, pet specialty retailers and other retail and wholesale outlets. In 2006, the Fund produced more than one billion containers. On 16 March 2007 Menu Foods announced the precautionary recall of the “cuts and gravy” style pet food in cans and pouches manufactured between 3 December 2006 and 6 March 2007.  For several days the Ontario company had been receiving complaints about the renal health of pets in the United States, there were none from Canada or Mexico.  The company immediate subjected the product to a battery of tests and discovered that the problem coincided with the purchase of ingredients from a new supplier.  The Fund estimates that this recall will cost between $30 and $40 million that will be financed by internally generated finance and bank credit.  Their major purchaser has also put 11% of the company’s sales on hold.  On 24 March 2007 it was reported that the New York State Agriculture Commissioner and Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine announced that scientists at the New York State Food Laboratory had identified Aminopterin as a toxin, formerly used to induce abortions and as a rodenticide, present in recalled pet food samples supplied by the Fund.

2. As of 21 March 2007 the Food and Drug Administration reported 14 animal deaths to the FDA. Nine cats died during routine taste trials conducted by the company. Consumers reported deaths of four cats and one dog. The firm has undertaken extensive testing of the pet food products in question, but to date has been unable to find the source of the problem.  The products are packaged in cans and pouches under numerous brand names and are marketed nationwide by many pet food retailers including Ahold USA Inc., Kroger Company, Safeway, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., PetSmart, Inc., and Pet Valu, Inc.  A similar problem was reported on 31 December 2005 when dog food contaminated with Aflatoxin, a naturally occurring chemical that comes from a fungus sometimes found on corn and other crops and can cause severe liver damage, killed 23 dogs and sickened 18 others precipitating a recall by Diamond Pet Food Co.

3. Menu Foods does take responsibility for paying for the sickness or death of any animal that became ill from their product.  Menu has engaged a professional firm to manage concerns and is currently contacting concerned pet owners who have reached the call center.  Consumers are directed to keep copies of all your vet records and receipts for pet food purchases as well as vet bills. 

4. What went wrong?  It is very obvious from reading any of the company’s press releases that the company has legal sanctions against the United States of America.  Every press release states,


This is blatant discrimination against the United States by this Ontario company in the same vein as the secrecy covering the toxic effects reported in Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation that is now engaged by US Congress where we presume it is safe.  The problem in this case regarding the Menu Foods recall can be understood by playing with the translation of ultra vires, unauthorized practice of law.  In practice this tends to mean that cases of poisonings tend to stem from the discriminatory unauthorized practice of law. To redress this case Menu Foods will need to recall their products, as they have already done, furthermore Menu Foods will have discontinue the use of this discriminatory sentence.  It is this second task, the liberation of the information for the US Newswire Services that the Province of Ontario is sought.

5. On 16 March 2007 Menu Foods Income Fund Recall Information announced the precautionary recall of a portion of the dog and cat food it manufactured between December 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007.  This was the same day my father, a veterinarian, was informed that he had not responded to similar complaint.  The recall affects 42 brands of cat food and 53 brands of dog food. The recall is limited to "cuts and gravy" style pet food in cans and pouches manufactured at two of the Fund's United States facilities. These products are both manufactured and sold under private-label and are contract-manufactured for some national brands. The Fund has, discovered that timing of the production associated with these complaints, coincides with the introduction of an ingredient from a new supplier. The Fund stopped using this ingredient shortly after this discovery and production since then has been undertaken using ingredients from another source.

6. On 23 March 2007 Paul Henderson, President and CEO of Menu Foods and Dr. Richard Shields, Executive Vice President of Menu Foods, a PHD in Animal Nutrition and head of Menu's technical services that includes research & development, regulatory and quality assurance said, We are happy and relieved that the experts from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Cornell University have discovered the root of the issue that has harmed North American cats and dogs. This important discovery caps an unprecedented search by top experts. Dedicated and knowledgeable researchers at universities, independent laboratories, and our own veterinary consultants worked tirelessly to defend and protect our cats and dogs. Over the past seven days, we have spoken with almost two hundred thousand consumers. They were scared; some angry; they demonstrated a level of care and concern that only those of us who are pet-owners can understand. Our hearts go out to the many thousands of pet-owners across Canada and the U.S. for their losses and their worry. We are grateful to them for their patience as we hunted for the root of the problem.

7. Reports from the Canadian Supreme Court, that I subscribed to, from my home in Ohio in fall of 2006, indicate that there are ongoing tensions between Ontario and the USA that should also be looked into by the Province of Ontario to eliminate conspiracies between their ambitious drug cops and those in the United States as well any other discriminatory export practices from Ontario to the United States.  The first case noted, after a slew of complaints about Canadian lawyers doing business with the United States, was in regards to
International law - Conflict of laws - Trademark - Enforcement of foreign judgment was Pro Golf Swing Inc and Ohio Corporation v. Elta Golf Inc an Ontario Corporation No. 30529 where an Ohio Corporation sued for the enforcement of a trademark dispute regarding golf clubs where the Ontario Corporation did not comply with the contempt order.  

8. In Lloyd Prudenza and David Dalglish v. United States of America, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Ont)(Criminal)(By Leave) No. 31696 on international law, public international extradition the applicants and others operated a telemarketing scheme in Toronto in 2001 and 2002.  They allegedly fraudulently offered pre-approved credit cards to United States residents for an advance fee, collecting more than $7,000,000 without providing credit cards.  The applicants were charged in Canada with a number of fraud counts and making false representations contrary to the Competition Act. The United States requested extradition.  The applicants requested disclosure of documentation in the hands of Canadian and American authorities in order to argue an abuse of process but their application was denied. 

9. In Talib Steven Lake v. The United States of America and the Honourable Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice (Ont.)(Criminal)(By Leave) No. 31631 the applicant made an offer to sell crack cocaine to an undercover Ontario Provincial Police officer in Windsor, Ontario.  The sale occurred in Detroit Michigan.  The applicant sold the officer 99.2 grams of crack cocaine.  Lake was convicted and imprisoned in Canada.  The United States requested extradition to face the charge of unlawful distribution of crack cocaine in Michigan, which carries a minimum sentence of ten year imprisonment. The Minister ordered his surrender dismissing arguments based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  In this case the International Convention against Torture and Degrading Treatment prohibition against refouler whereas the extraordinarily long sentence for crack cocaine in the US constitutes torture.  Furthermore the theory of entrapment indicates that the charges should be dismissed because the crime would not have been committed if not suggested by the arresting officer.  The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has undertaken to revise the sentencing regarding crack cocaine however the disparities between Canadian and US law indicate Mr. Lake would be much safer in Canadian custody.

10. In Roman Jachowski v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)(Criminal)(By Leave) No. 31645 the case regarding criminal and penal law, evidence, proceeds of crime and forfeiture of proceeds of trafficking was contested as a wrongful conviction based on evidence that was planted in the applicant's home by police who were not properly vetted for corruption by defence counsel.  On November 6, 2002 undercover police officers purchased cocaine from the applicant for $500.  On the 15th they obtained more cocaine but no more money changed hands.  Both transactions occurred at an inn they then seized $4,510 in cash from his person, $83,413 Canadian and $1,532 from a safe including a $50 bill with the same serial number used to make the initial purchase.

11. More to the point, Ken Allan, Neris Allan, Peter Belanger, Christopher Birch, Louise Birch, Henry Bloemert, Murray Clark, Jeannot Dagenais, Wilson Davy, Mark Furlong, Albert Haemmerli, James Hamilton, Joban Farms Ltd., Laurence Mackay, David McCuaig, Almac Holsteins Ltd., Ghislain Leclerc, Paul McMahon, Trevor Morris, Orlin Pelton, Agnes Prosak (c.o.b. as Osaca Holsteins Dairy Farm), Raymond Slack, Andrew Streutker, Rebecca Streutker, Stephen Todd, Richard Ververs, and Georgian Bay Milk Company v. Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, Minister of Agriculture and Food and Dairy Farmers of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) No. 31425 regarding Administrative law - Judicial review - Appeal - Constitutional law - Division of powers - the Constitutionality of provincial milk marketing scheme requiring that milk destined for export be marketed to Respondent marketing board was brought into question for several reasons.  Whether Divisional Court erred by failing to find that s. 8 of the federal Dairy Products Marketing Regulations, SOR/94-466, is ultra vires its enabling statute, the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑15 - Whether Divisional Court erred by failing to find that s. 8 of the Dairy Products Marketing Regulations should be read down as not applying to exports - Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing leave to appeal Divisional Court’s decision.  There appears to have been a concerted illegal effort to affect the export market.  Now Menu Foods has gotten through. 

12. In R. v. Spencer, SCC 11 of March 8, 2007 the concept of voir dire, “to tell the truth” was introduced to assist in the selection of jurists.   To ensure a fair and equitable settlement of this case regarding the Ontario corporation that was ultra vire to the US news media before their food became contaminated with an ultra viral rodenticide that killed more than 16 pets and millions of containers needed to be recalled the truth must be told to the US media in the future and the Province of Ontario is sought to see that the offensive clause is removed from all future press releases.  R. v. Bryan, SCC 12 15 March 2007 found that when social science evidence of a harm is conflicting or inconclusive, “the court may rely on a reasoned apprehension of ... harm”.  The values and principles essential to a free and democratic society dictate respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society. 


13. While it is true that animal care professionals in the US are having socio-political problems, possibly because of the incompetence 
of the average veterinarian to overthrow the corruption of the DEA, since Attorney General Gonzalez usurped the authority of the 
case reviewed in Independent Drug Enforcement Administration HA-9-11-01 as more powerful physicians are also loth to do, this 
means that Menu Foods needs to be particularly careful not to discriminate against the United States or fall for the discrimination 
against the United States by their incompetent legal counsel.   For instance, Stephani Studebaker DVM a candidate for Congressional 
office and her husband, Sam, were booked into the Montgomery County Jail in Dayton after police answered calls about a fight in 
their home.  The Ohio congressional candidate suspended her campaign after she and her husband were charged with domestic violence 
as reported by 9 News. Ohio Candidate Charged with Domestic Violence. 15 August 2006.  Furthermore, the former head of the Food 
and Drug Administration Lester Crawford DVM will be responding to charges from the Justice Department that, while heading the FDA 
for only several months, he and his wife deliberately lied about owning stocks and stock options in companies regulated by the department 
after being warned by the Department of Health and Human Services. NPR. Former FDA Chief Charged with Lying About Stocks. 17 
October 2006.  More to the case at bar, my father, Marcel Sanders DVM, who has been thrown out of my house at great loss to my 
personal income and many years of friendship, on charges of letting his wife’s bio-terrorism corrupt him, failed to respond on 15 March 
2007 for which he was confronted on the 16th, the day Menu Foods decided to recall their “cuts and gravy” food, for which he is to be 
convicted tomorrow, the 27th, for the pleasure of the AVMA and general public. These cases illustrate the social problems faces by the 
US pet industry and it has never been so important to uphold the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the American Veterinary 
Medical Association (AVMA) (Approved by the Executive Board July 1999; revised November 2003).  The Basics of the Principle is 
the golden rule, that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated.  To this case this rule applies to the unequal treatment of the 
US news media.  In practice when it comes to dealing with the chronic contempt of pet professionals, it is necessary to hit them with 
the big stick in their licensing dependency, not the newspaper or the armed forces.


14. To resolve this case the UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 220 2006-2007 continues to satisfy contemporary demands for corporate responsibility.  The offence will be punishable by an unlimited fine and remedial orders requiring organizations to take steps to remedy the management failure concerned.  This time we shall ensure an equal right to life between human and animals.  The right to life is of course the most fundamental of all rights.  It is particularly satisfying to enforce this right in regards to domestic animals because 9 million cats and dogs are euthanized annually, in the United States alone.  While animals are not vested with all the rights of humans, animals that have owners are considered their property, much like slaves in the last century.  Dogs and cats may not be arbitrarily killed or hurt.  In the United States statute prohibits cruelty to animals.  Menu Foods has already agreed to defray the cost of treating sickened and dead animals.  To do the animals justice and permit the owners who lost a loved one to purchase a new animal, it is recommended to capitalize upon the obstruction to the freedom of the press under the Clayton Act 15USC(1)§15 to charge three times damages, meaning the cost of purchasing the animal if that animal died, the cost of veterinary care and the cost of the food which they purchased.  This is a reasonable settlement for the corporation to apologize, the pet owners who are of course free to sue for more.

15. Whereas all the damages occurred and the continuing contempt is occurring against the US it is US statute that is sought to resolve 
this case under law.  21USC(9)§344 Emergency Permit Control sets forth the most rational regime for redressing these circumstances.  
When the Secretary finds that a class of food is injurious to the public health conditions shall be placed on the permit of such manufacturer 
for a limited time.  Should the conditions be violated the permit may be suspended.  To ascertain compliance inspections may be conducted.  
Under 21USC(9)§350d the two facilities located in the US from whence the contaminated food came from should be registered as a domestic 
facility by the Secretary and facilities located in Canada as foreign facilities.  Whereas Menu Foods has substantially complied in the recall 
of the foods but remains non-compliant in regards it is important to elaborate on the procedure for the issuance of emergency control permits 
for the manufacturer or packer of thermally processed low-acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers, and intended for use as 
food for animals under 21CFR§500.24.

16. Having investigated Menu Foods and found that they have satisfactorily alleviated fears of further contamination as the result of their speedy and professional recall but are wanting in regards to the freedom of press in the United States it is determined that the FDA should exercise their authority of Emergency Permit Control to order Menu Foods to delete the sentence, NOT FOR RELEASE OVER US NEWSWIRE SERVICES from all future press releases whereas this unauthorized practice of law presents a threat of bio-terrorism, the identity of the unnamed supplier will also need to be revealed and facilities inspected.  The Province of Ontario is also welcome to enforce this amendment of the corporate press release.  Under 21CFR§108.5 the manufacturer shall have 3 working days after receipt of such order within which to file objections. Such objections may be filed by telegram, telex, or any other mode of written communication addressed to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-605), 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740.

Menu Foods Income Fund, 8 Falconer Drive, Streetsville, ON, Canada L5N 1B1 1-866-895-2708