Hospitals & Asylums
In Re: Menu Foods Recall HA-26-3-07
By Anthony J. Sanders
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
|
Stock Quote |
TSX:MEW.UN
|
||
|
Last updated: |
16:14 (EST) |
||
|
LastTrade |
4.300 |
Previous Close |
5.100 |
|
Last Buyer |
Anonymous Broker |
Last Seller |
Standard Securities Capital Corp. |
|
Open |
4.660 |
Net |
-0.800 |
|
High |
4.750 |
Low |
4.020 |
|
Volume |
518,300 |
#Trades |
398 |
|
Last bid |
4.300 |
Bid size |
9 |
|
Last ask |
4.340 |
Ask size |
2 |
|
52 wk high |
7.470 |
52 wk low |
3.020 |
|
Dividends/share |
0.000 |
Dividend date |
1/1/1 |
|
EPS |
0.350 |
P/E |
14.500 |
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
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,
NOT FOR RELEASE OVER
US NEWSWIRE SERVICES
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