On February 17, 2012 Hill’s Pet Nutrition made one of the most profitable marketing moves in pet food history: they filed a trademark application for the term “Prescription Diet.”

Previous to this, nobody thought about how lucrative selling the same crummy ingredients could be if they simply required a prescription from vets. It was an ingenuous way to sell virtually the same foods found in the grocery store aisle with a grossly inflated price tag: through the influence of a trusted health professional.

This worked so well for Hill’s that other brands introduced veterinary diets. Soon, vets happily reported that between 35-40% of their patients were on veterinary diets. It was a win for the vets because they enjoyed a percentage of sales and it was a win for pet food makers.

Because Hill’s owned the trademark for “Prescription Diet” competitors like Iams, Royal Canin and Purina, were force to use the term “Veterinary Diet.” Regardless of the name, these companies made a fortune using prescriptions as a means to inflate prices on virtually the same foods they were already selling. Together, veterinary foods are expected to earn over $21 billion in 2024 and reach over $33 billion by 2029.

WHY PRESCRIPTION DIETS AREN’T REGULATED

Prescription and veterinary foods present a challenge when it comes to standards and regulations.

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) sets the standards for pet food claims and ingredients. But dog food labels can’t claim to treat, prevent or reduce the risk of any disease. They also can’t make claims such as “hypoallergenic” or “improves skin and coat” or any other claim that suggests any type of therapeutic benefit.

Once a pet food label makes any type of health claim, it becomes a drug and the claim would be regulated by the FDA, not AAFCO. So, unlike other dog foods, prescription diets are foods that are being marketed as drugs.

But the FDA clearly states that veterinary diets do not meet the requirements of a drug: “most dog and cat food products that claim on their labels or in their labeling or other manufacturer communications to treat or prevent disease are not approved new animal drugs, and do not comply with drug registration and listing requirements, or with current good manufacturing practices applicable to drugs even though the products are drugs under the FD&C Act.”

In the end, the FDA chooses to practice something called “enforcement discretion” for veterinary diets. The agency would ‘look the other way’ and allow prescription foods to be sold as long as:

They provide all or most of the nutrients in support of the animal’s total required daily nutrient needs,
The product labels and labeling and other manufacturer communications that were available to the general public (i.e., non-veterinary professionals) did not contain claims to treat or prevent disease, and
Those products are distributed only through licensed veterinarians.

The assumption is that, because the food is prescription only, the vet writing the prescription can safely and appropriately use the product. So prescription foods don’t need to meet AAFCO minimum nutritional requirements because they fall under FDA purview, while the FDA allowed pet food makers to sell an adulterated and misbranded product.

PET OWNERS WAKING UP?

Although AAFCO and the FDA continue to look the other way when it comes to veterinary diets, consumers may finally be waking up to the prescription fallacy.

A group of pet owners in Illinois recently filed an $80 million class action lawsuit against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, claiming Hill’s is using deceptive and practices to sell their prescription diets.

The suit claims: “Reasonable consumers expected, but did not receive, a substance that:

(a) is legally required to be sold by prescription;

(b) contains a drug, medicine or other ingredient that is not common in non-prescription pet food;

(c) is medically necessary to the health of the pet for which it was prescribed;

(d) has been evaluated and approved by the FDA as a drug; and/or

(e) as to which Hill’s representations regarding intended uses and effects have been evaluated by the FDA.

Attorney Mike McGlamry, who represents the Illinois pet owners in the suit, explains:

“Hill’s picked the name ‘Prescription Diet.’ Hill’s spends millions to convince veterinarians to ‘prescribe’ these foods to the vulnerable owners of sick cats and dogs. And, no surprise, Hill’s charges a lot more for these products compared to similar and cheaper off-the-shelf pet foods that the company also makes.”

When questioned under oath in our case, however, Hill’s executives had to admit that its high-priced ‘Prescription Diet’ products contain no drugs or medicines and that no prescription is legally required.”

Pet owners who wish to join this class action or learn more information can call 877-265-7656.

Written by Dana Scott, DogsNaturallyMagazine.com