Vets Plus invests in production equipment for jerky pet treats

Vets Plus Inc., a maker of pet supplements, invested US$0.5 million to add new production equipment for cold and heat-extruded jerky for pets. In addition, the company sent several research and production staff members for specialized training to create custom jerky and treats for its customers.
According to the company's CEO and president, Raj Lall: "We can custom formulate any nutraceutical supplement, and now we are able to produce those supplements in another form: jerky for dogs. We are focusing on making dental treats and branching into that rapidly growing market, but a whole host of other natural compounds can be added to jerky to address other nutritional concerns."
The new equipment is housed in a 30,000-square-foot space in western Wisconsin, USA. Lall said the product will be available for contract manufacturing. "Private labeling is our backbone," he said. "We look forward to developing unique jerky products manufactured and packaged to fit the needs of our partners." Full-scale production of jerky is expected to begin in November.

Petfood labeling lawsuit thrown out

San Francisco lawyers rescued Wal-Mart and a group of petfood manufacturers on March 16 from a class action that could have led to millions of dollars in damages.
A federal judge in Nevada, granted a motion by the defense to pre-emptively deny certification to a class of plaintiffs that would have spanned eight states, including California. Margaret Picus, a Nevada woman, filed a class action in state court against Wal-Mart and a group of food manufacturers in April 2007, alleging that they illegally labeled their petfood "Made in USA," though some ingredients were imported from China.
The previous month, the Food and Drug Administration had announced that certain petfood ingredients imported from China were sickening and killing cats and dogs.
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro of Nevada denied Picus class certification in Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, 07-00682, ruling that subjective, individual issues made a class action the wrong way to handle the case. Specifically, Pro wrote in his decision, the law requires the plaintiffs to prove that each person who bought the tainted petfood did so because it was labeled "Made in USA."