Purina Complaint Against Blue Buffalo

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc.
#: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 1 of 36 PageID #: 2358
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NESTL PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:14-cv-00859-RWS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Nestl Purina PetCare Company (Purina), for its Second Amended Complaint
against defendant The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. (Blue Buffalo or Defendant), and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), hereby alleges and states as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
This is an action for false advertising, commercial disparagement, and unjust
enrichment arising from defendant Blue Buffalos pattern of false and deceptive advertising.
This is also an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 57, seeking a declaration that Purinas filing of this false advertising
action against Blue Buffalo and related statements regarding this action do not constitute
defamation or other actionable disparagement of Blue Buffalo.
2.
With tens of millions of dollars in advertising and a small army of in-store
marketers, Blue Buffalo has targeted its advertising at ingredient-conscious pet owners. It has
become increasingly clear, however, that Blue Buffalos brand is built on a platform of
dishonesty and deception. Testing from an independent laboratory reveals that Blue Buffalo is
falsely advertising its pet food as containing NO Chicken/Poultry By-Product Meals when, in
Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 2 of 36 PageID #: 2359
fact, Blue Buffalo pet food contains significant amounts of chicken/poultry by-product meals.
Contrary to Blue Buffalos so-called True Blue Promise, many Blue Buffalo products also
contain corn, other grains, and artificial preservatives when they promise otherwise.
3.
Spending roughly $50 million per year on advertising, Blue Buffalo puts heavy
emphasis on its ingredient and nutritional claims throughout its website, product packaging, and
advertisements. Despite Blue Buffalos massive advertising barrage, Purina has discovered that
Blue Buffaloand not the big name pet food manufacturers Blue Buffalo routinely criticizes
in its advertisingis concealing the truth about the ingredients in, and benefits of, its products.
As Blue Buffalos CEO, Bill Bishop, admitted publicly after Purina filed this lawsuit:
Slap on a good label, come up with a slogan, and off you go . . .
There were already a lot of smoke and mirrors in how pet food was
advertised, and that was the sort of stuff we were good at.
Barrett, Paul M., Dog Food Fight! Purina Says Blue Buffalo is Built on Lies, Bloomberg
Businessweek Companies & Industries (July 24, 2014).
4.
Blue Buffalo has indeed mastered the art of smoke and mirrors. Investigation
and scientific testing by an independent laboratory completed in April 2014 reveals that certain
Blue Buffalo products in fact contain poultry by-product meal and that Blue Buffalo products
labeled grain-free contain rice hulls and/or corn. (See Exhibit A). Testing was conducted using
samples of multiple formulas of Blue Buffalo pet food purchased at retail stores on both the East
and West Coasts.
5.
Fundamental to Blue Buffalos advertising are categorical assertions that Blue
Buffalo products are allegedly superior to competitor brands. Through Blue Buffalos advertising
in which it advocates its products as made with only the finest natural ingredients and free
from less than desirable ingredients such as chicken/poultry by-product meals, corn, and
preservatives, Blue Buffalo has become a pet food brand that consumers have come to
associatefalsely with very high, ultra-premium healthy pet food. To make matters worse,
Blue Buffalo charges very high ultra-premium prices based on the same false attributes. Blue
Buffalos products are significantly more expensive than the pet food products they use for
comparison purposes on their website.
6.
Another hallmark of Blue Buffalos advertising is a vicious and false attack on all
big name pet foods. Among these, the biggest falsehood is Blue Buffalos lengthy national
advertising campaign claiming that big name pet food manufacturers are concealing the truth
about the ingredients in their products.
Blue Buffalo has spent millions on television
commercials touting this themewhich is false and unsubstantiated. Purina brings this lawsuit
to stop Blue Buffalos wrongdoing and to set the record straight.
7.
Purina is not alone in exposing Blue Buffalos lack of honesty with consumers.
Purina brings this lawsuit in the wake of an investigation and two recent rulings from the
National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD) that Blue
Buffalo is engaging in misleading advertising practices. At the conclusion of a process where
Blue Buffalo had the opportunity to submit substantiation for its attack advertisements, the NAD
concluded in a detailed written decision: [Blue Buffalo] has not provided any evidence that big
name pet food manufacturers . . . are actively concealing the truth about the ingredients in their
products. (NAD Case #5696, decided March 11, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit B, hereinafter
NAD Ruling).
8.
Consequently, and as the NAD concluded, Blue Buffalo is misleading consumers
not only about the ingredients in its own products, but also about the ingredients in competing
products. The NAD sharply criticized Blue Buffalos advertising tactics and recommended that
Blue Buffalo stop unsupported advertising claiming that Blue Buffalos competitors are
misleading consumers. (Id. at 8-10, 14).
9.
The NAD also instructed Blue Buffalo to overhaul its True Blue Test, which
Blue Buffalo offers on its website as a comparison tool for consumers to use to compare certain
characteristics of Blue Buffalos products versus those of competitors (including Purina
products). The NAD determined, among other things, that: (a) Blue Buffalo was guilty of
making sweeping allegations about the ingredient content of all products offered by certain
competitors, when in fact such statements may only be true for a fraction of those competitors
product offerings; and (b) the information displayed about competitor products was not always
current. (Id. at 11-4). Blue Buffalo preaches a message of truth, but is not practicing it.
10.
After Purinas original complaint was filed, Blue Buffalo appealed the NADs
ruling. On July 9, 2014, a four-member panel of the National Advertising Review Board
(NARB) upheld the original decision of the NAD on appeal. (See Exhibit C). After losing its
appeal, Blue Buffalo finally agreed, reluctantly, that it would strive to abide by the NADs
recommendations, [o]ut of respect for that process, because it voluntarily committed to
participate in the self-regulatory process of the NAD and NARB. (NARB Case #5696, decided
July 9, 2014, hereinafter NARB Ruling).
11.
Blue Buffalos pattern of behavior is unlawful and just plain wrong. Through this
legal action, Purina seeks to halt Blue Buffalos pattern of false advertising and consumer
deception.
THE PARTIES
12.
Plaintiff Purina is a leading pet food and nutrition company with a rich history
spanning over 85 years. Purina makes and sells pet food, treats, and related products in the
United States and worldwide in grocery stores, mass merchandisers, pet stores, and online.
4
Purina is a Missouri corporation with headquarters at 901 Chouteau Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri
63102.
13.
On information and belief, Defendant Blue Buffalo is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters at 444 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut 06897. Blue Buffalo is in the
business of advertising and selling pet food, pet treats, and related products.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.
This is an action for false advertising and arises under the Trademark Act of 1946,
15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. (Lanham Act) and the common law of the State of Missouri.
15.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338 and 2201. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
related state and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367(a). This Court
also has subject matter jurisdiction on the separate and independent ground of diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1332(a). The parties are citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
16.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Blue Buffalo pursuant to Missouri
Revised Statute 506.500 because, as admitted by Blue Buffalo in its Answer to Purinas First
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 21 at 12), Blue Buffalo advertises and sells its products to retailers
and consumers in Missouri. Upon information and belief, Blue Buffalo and its agents have
prepared, disseminated, made available or broadcasted television commercials, in-person
promotions, print advertisements, Internet advertisements and related materials, all of which are
at issue here, in this District. On information and belief, Blue Buffalo employs pet detectives
in Missouri to promote sales of Blue Buffalo products to consumers in various retail outlets in
Missouri. Blue Buffalo maintains a registered agent for service of process in Missouri.
17.
Venue is proper in this District under 1391(b)(2) and (c) because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action have occurred and/or will occur within
this District, and the Defendant resides in this District.
BLUE BUFFALOS FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES
18.
Blue Buffalos advertising strategy is centered around its ingredient and product
claims and promises, and the value of its brand is dependent on such claims. Nutritional,
ingredient and product performance claims pervade Blue Buffalos website, its product
packaging, its print ads, its television ads and other like advertising materials. As a consequence
of and in reliance on these claims, retailers and consumers are willing to pay and have paid a
substantial price premium for Blue Buffalo products.
19.
Blue Buffalos false advertising statements have had wide consumer reach. On
information and belief, Blue Buffalo spent over $50 million on advertising in 2013 comprised of
a wide array of national print, television, and Internet ads. On information and belief, Blue
Buffalo is poised to spend another $50 million or more on advertising in 2014. Many of these
advertisements include statements that are materially false and misleading, and were made with
the specific intent to persuade consumers to purchase Blue Buffalo products. Consumers have
relied on these false and misleading statements in making their decisions to purchase Blue
Buffalo products.
NO Chicken/Poultry By-Product Meals
20.
Blue Buffalo advertises a so-called TRUE BLUE PROMISE claiming
unequivocally that its products contain NO chicken/poultry by-product meals.
Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

In addition to its website, Blue Buffalo places the True Blue Promise on every label of its
products. Additionally, Blue Buffalos sales employees verbally communicate this promise to
consumers on-site at pet stores. The True Blue Promise is false because Blue Buffalo products
actually contain chicken/poultry by-product meals and other ingredients, contrary to the
promise.
21.
Blue Buffalo tries to boost the credibility of its advertising through more detailed
explanations and Q&A segments on its website:

22.
Blue Buffalos statements that its products contain NO chicken/poultry by-
product meals and its attempt to differentiate Blue Buffalo products from competing brands are
false because Blue Buffalos products actually contain a significant amount of chicken/poultry
by-product meals. In short, Blue Buffalo has broken its True Blue Promise to consumers. For
example, Blue Buffalo attempts to differentiate its products from many of the leading pet food
brands by contending that Blue Buffalo products do not contain ingredients . . . considered less
than desirable by pet parents such as chicken or poultry by-product meals. This is false.
23.
Purina engaged an independent laboratory to conduct testing to determine the
ingredient makeup of a number of Blue Buffalo products. The scientific testing revealed that,
contrary to Blue Buffalos representations to consumers that its products do not contain
8
chicken/poultry by-product meals, Blue Buffalos products actually do contain a substantial

percentage of chicken/poultry by-product mealsnot trace amounts. Indeed, the testing revealed
that chicken/poultry by-product meals were the most prevalent ingredients and comprised
upwards of 20% of the product by weight of some of the tested Blue Buffalo products.
Superior Nutrition
24.
Blue Buffalo makes statements that consumers should Choose BLUE because
its products allegedly provide pets with superior nutrition as compared to those of competitor
products. Blue Buffalos superior nutrition claims are premised in part on its assertions that its
products do not contain certain ingredients such as chicken/poultry by-product meals.
In
addition, Blue Buffalo attributes special nutritional significance to its exclusive LifeSource
Bits.

25.
Blue Buffalos superior nutrition claims were sharply criticized in the recent
NAD decision. Particularly, the NAD concluded:

[Blue Buffalo] has not provided any evidence that meat by-product meal
is not a high quality ingredient or that it is not nutritious, or that products
which include meat by-product meal are less nutritious than BLUEs or
similarly positioned products that do not.
(NAD Ruling at 10). In its criticism of Blue Buffalos efforts to disparage the nutritional value of
by-product meals, the NAD also explained that [i]n fact, NAD has noted in prior decisions
involving advertising for pet foods that chicken by-product meals are nutritious. (Id.). In
10
support of its finding that Blue Buffalos statements alleging superior nutrition were false and
baseless, the NAD explained:
some dogs and cats have allergies or sensitive stomachs which preclude
eating foods which include meat, and no allowance is made for products
designed for pets with dietary restrictions in any of the challenged
advertisements.
(Id.).
26.
Blue Buffalos statements that its products are nutritionally superior to those of
competitors are false because, as the NAD found, there is no evidence that Blue Buffalos
products are any more nutritious than similarly positioned competitive products. Furthermore,
Blue Buffalo cannot distinguish its products as allegedly superior over competitive products
for not having chicken/poultry by-product meals as the testing reveals that its products contain
this precise ingredient.
Comparative Advertising
27.
Blue Buffalos advertising features comparisons between Blue Buffalo products
and those of its competitors, which represents and sends a message to consumers that Blue
Buffalos products contain better ingredients and that Blue Buffalo is, unlike its competitors,
honest about the ingredients that it uses. Blue Buffalo even offers to give consumers information
about How [] some brands categorize certain ingredients to make their food appear healthier,
falsely implying that Blue Buffalo is honest and does not engage in such tactics.
11

28.
Blue Buffalo has aired and continues to air nationally televised commercials
featuring pet owners who allegedly switch to Blue Buffalo after learning the truth about big
name dog foods. For example, one of Blue Buffalos attack ads states verbatim:
When pet parents learn the truth about big name dog foods, they switch
to Blue Buffalo. All Blue Life Protection foods are made with real meat
first, plus wholesome whole grains, veggies and fruit.
I didnt know how my dogs big name food stacked up, so I went to Blues
website, and I took the True Blue Test. It was clear, Blue had everything
that I wanted and none of the stuff I didnt want.
Only Blue has LifeSource Bits. A precise blend of beneficial nutrients.
And now weve enhanced LifeSource Bits with powerful antioxidant-rich
ingredients, including pomegranate, pumpkin, spinach, apples,
blackberries, blueberries and cranberries. We call it our Super 7 package.
When you love them like family, you want to feed them like family.
Thats why I feed him Blue. With Super 7 Life Source Bits, Blue is better
than ever. Take the True Blue Test today, and see how your dogs food
compares to Blue.
12
(Blue Buffalo website: http://www.bluebuffalo.com/tv-commercials) (emphasis added).
Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014; BLUE Dog Food commercial

29.
Despite being told by the NAD to cease its unsubstantiated attacks on competing
brands, Blue Buffalo continues to pepper consumers with these false messages.
30.
To help misleadingly differentiate itself from other competing brands, Blue
Buffalo offers through its website what it has coined the True Blue Test, which allows
consumers to compare the alleged ingredient contents of Blue Buffalos products with those of
other leading brands, including those of Purina. Among other claims, the True Blue Test
falsely advocates that Blue Buffalos products NEVER Has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product
Meals and identifies competing leading brands that, by Blue Buffalos assessment, do. (See,
e.g., id.). These statements are materially false because Blue Buffalo products, as tested, contain
chicken/poultry by-product mealsin significant amounts. Further, many Blue Buffalo products
13
contain corn and artificial preservatives, also directly contrary to the representation that Blue
Buffalo products NEVER contain these ingredients.

31.
Consumers of pet food and related products are becoming increasingly ingredient-
conscious and are being more particular than ever about the types of foods that they feed their
pets. Indeed, consumers rely on ingredient claims and other statements about nutritional value
and food quality when deciding the brand of food to feed their pets. Many consumers have
chosen to purchaseand pay a substantial premium forBlue Buffalo brand products over other
leading brands because of the false nutritional statements and promises made by Blue Buffalo,
including, for example, false statements that its products: (i) do not contain chicken/poultry byproduct meals; and (ii) contain none of the ingredients that ingredient-conscious consumers
would not want; when in fact, Blue Buffalos products contain chicken by-product meals and
other ingredients that Blue Buffalo itself advocates ingredient-conscious consumers should not
want.
14
LifeSource Bits
32.
Blue Buffalo has created what it calls LifeSource Bits that it represents as
containing special vitamins, minerals and antioxidants that are allegedly cold-formed. These
bits are distinct from and a different color than the kibble that constitutes about 95% of the
Blue Buffalo pet food as a whole. Blue Buffalo touts its LifeSource Bits as containing a precise
blend of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants and offering a series of special health benefits for
pets above and beyond the nutrition in Blue Buffalos own kibbles and other pet foods:

33.
Blue Buffalo falsely implies that its LifeSource Bits are superior in nutritional
quality to vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and other ingredients included in other competing pet
food products. For example, Blue Buffalo includes LifeSource Bits on the results page of its
True Blue Test, advertising LifeSource Bits as one of the qualities that allegedly makes Blue
Buffalos products superior to those of competitors.
15

34.
In actuality, the low level of certain nutrients in Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits
do not render them superior. Similarly, Blue Buffalo makes false and misleading statements that
its LifeSource Bits contain certain levels of vitamins, minerals and nutrients that provide specific
health benefits such as a healthy skin and coat and healthy bones and tissue.
16

35.
For example, Blue Buffalo claims that its LifeSource Bits contain taurine for
healthy eyes and heart. Taurine is an essential amino acid for cats, as cats have a limited ability
to synthesize it from other nutrients. Yet tests reveal that Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits have
significantly less taurine than the kibbles themselves, constituting only 0.01% of the LifeSource
Bit. (See Exhibits D, E). Contrary to Blue Buffalos claim of greater potency, removing the
LifeSource Bits from the kibble would actually increase the amount of taurine per serving of
Blue Buffalo pet food. In fact, in order to obtain the same level of taurine from the touted
LifeSource Bits would require nearly 40 times as many LifeSource Bits as the Blue Buffalo
kibbles themselves. (See Exhibits D-G). The level of taurine in Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits
is approximately ten times less than that required by the Association of American Feed Control
Officialsan independent industry standard that Blue Buffalo claims to follow on its website.
36.
A similar circumstance exists with respect to lysine, another important amino
acid. Despite claiming that its LifeSource Bits contain lysine for growth and development, in
fact the LifeSource Bits contain less lysine than Blue Buffalos kibble. As with taurine, a pet
would get more lysine per serving if Blue Buffalos product contained no LifeSource Bits.
37.
Blue Buffalo makes similarly dubious claims regarding the levels of omega-3 and
omega-6 fatty acids in its LifeSource Bits. Tests reveal that Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits have
17
slightly less omega-6 fatty acids than their regular kibble. Therefore, a pet would receive more
omega-6 fatty acids per serving if Blue Buffalo added no LifeSource Bits at all. Furthermore,
the LifeSource Bits are such a small fraction of the pet food as a whole that any additional
omega-3 fatty acids in the LifeSource Bits contribute a negligible amount per serving to a pet.
38.
Blue Buffalos deceptions also extend to the vitamins in the LifeSource Bits.
Blue Buffalo advertises its LifeSource Bits for their levels of Vitamin B12, but in fact the
LifeSource Bits contain 2-3 times less Vitamin B12 than the regular kibble.
39.
In sum, Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits do not contain the requisite levels of
vitamins, minerals or nutrients to provide all of the health benefits that Blue Buffalo alleges. As
such, Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits are precisely the type of smoke and mirrors touted by its
Chairman and Founder.
40.
Blue Buffalo also makes false and misleading statements implying that the cold-
formed process that it purportedly uses to create its LifeSource Bits is the only way to preserve
the vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and enzymes contained in pet food and falsely asserts that its
competitors do not take steps to similarly preserve the nutritional qualities of their products. Blue
Buffalo also makes statements that other manufacturers process their foods with heat as high as
350 . . . [which] can destroy the potency of many vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and important
enzymes, while failing to disclose the reason why foods are processed with heat (e.g., to kill
harmful bacteria) and that, in fact, most of Blue Buffalos products are processed using the same
high-heat methods. (See, e.g., id.).
18

Pet Treats
41.
While Blue Buffalos focus on LifeSource Bits pervades its advertising for dog
and cat food, Blue Buffalo also advertises products allegedly providing specific health benefits.
For example, Blue Buffalo advertises a Jolly Joints pet treat that Helps Promote Healthy
Joints and Hips.
19

42.
By Blue Buffalos own admission, these pet treats contain only 300mg/kg of
glucosamine. An entire bag of Jolly Joints contains 92 grams of pet treats, and therefore contains
just 27.6 mg of glucosamine. Based upon published studies of glucosamine supplementation in
dogs, a 50-pound dog would have to eat hundreds of treats a day to receive the claimed benefit,
well above the intermittent or supplemental feeding Blue Buffalo recommends for its Jolly
Joints pet treats.
Natural Ingredients/NO Artificial Preservatives
43.
Blue Buffalo has made and is currently making statements and promises to
consumers that its products contain Only the Finest Natural Ingredients and have NO
Artificial Preservatives.
20
21
44.
These statements and promises are repeated throughout Blue Buffalos website,
its national television commercials and other advertising materials. Blue Buffalos employees
also make verbal statements to consumers that Blue Buffalos products contain Only the Finest
Natural Ingredients and like statements. Blue Buffalo even has a staff of salespeople who dress
similarly to pet store employees and approach consumers in pet stores to inform consumers of
the quality of Blue Buffalos products as compared to competitive products, including the
falsehood that Blue Buffalos products do not contain any chicken/poultry by-product meals and
that Blue Buffalo honors the True Blue Promise.
45.
Blue Buffalos statements and promises that its products contain Only the Finest
Natural Ingredients and have NO Artificial Preservatives are false and misleading because,
among other things, Blue Buffalos products contain chicken/poultry by-product meals that
include artificial preservatives that are not present in chicken/poultry meal.
Grain-Free
46.
Blue Buffalo advertises several of its products, including its Freedom and
Basics lines, as being grain-free, often as part of the product name. Blue Buffalo also
advertises that all of its products contain no corn, wheat or soy.
47.
Grain-free pet foods are desired by many consumers who believe that dogs and
cats should be fed as carnivores because they may not get sufficient nutrients or have difficulty
digesting grains. Blue Buffalo attempts to seize upon consumers beliefs and advocates that not
including grains and glutens in its products is beneficial because consuming grains and glutens
can cause allergic reactions.
22
23

48.
Blue Buffalos statements that its products are grain-free and contain no corn,
wheat or soy are, however, false and misleading as testing reveals that Blue Buffalo products
indeed do contain these ingredients. Specifically, independent testing commissioned by Purina
found grains (rice hulls and/or ground corn) in Blue Buffalos LifeSource Bits, which are
contained in all four Blue Buffalo grain-free products. These grains were found in
concentrations of up to 3% by weight.
49.
By falsely advertising its products as grain-free when its products actually
contain grains, Blue Buffalo is deceiving consumers who intend to purchase grain-free products.
24
Human-Grade Pet Food

50.
Blue Buffalo makes statements that its products are human-grade and fit for
human consumption, and has adopted the slogan Love them like family. Feed them like family.
to convey this message to consumers. (See, e.g., Exhibit H).
25

51.
Blue Buffalos statements that its products are human-grade and/or fit for human
consumption are materially false because Blue Buffalos products contain ingredients such as
chicken/poultry by-product meals that are not human-grade.
BLUE BUFFALOS PRIOR DECEPTIVE PRODUCT
LABELING AND ADVERTISING PRACTICES
52.
In addition to the recent NAD dispute, Blue Buffalo has been no stranger to legal
disputes centered on its pattern of long-standing deceptive advertising practices. In 2008, Blue
Buffalos nutritional boasts were challenged by a competitor before the NAD. That challenge
resulted in, among other things, the NAD instructing Blue Buffalo to discontinue its no animal
by-products claims when made in reference to pet foods containing fish meal, lamb meal and/or
26
liver. (See NAD Case #4892 at 10-11, decided July 31, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit I). In
response to the NADs recommendations related to its no animal by-products claims, Blue
Buffalo has switched to an equally untrue claim that its products NEVER have Chicken (or
Poultry) By-Product Meals.
53.
The NAD also recommended that Blue Buffalo discontinue the like you feed
your family portion of its slogan in connection with its non-organic product lines. (Id. at 14).
Despite submitting voluntarily to the NADs jurisdiction, Blue Buffalo did not make any
material changes to its slogan in response to the NADs recommendation and continues to
deceptively advertise all of its products using its Love them like family. Feed them like family.
slogan.
54.
Rather than revise its advertising to remove deceptive content, Blue Buffalo has
actually increased the misleading and deceptive nature of its advertising over the years. It is time
for Blue Buffalos false and deceptive advertising practices to end.
BLUE BUFFALOS REACTION TO PURINAS COMPLAINT
55.
On May 6, Purina filed the original version of this complaint. In addition to its
original complaint, Purina (A) issued a press release noting that it had filed suit, (B) launched a
website, www.petfoodhonesty.com, that hosted a copy of the original complaint, and (C) made
additional related statements regarding this lawsuit to the media.
56.
On the day the original complaint was filed, Blue Buffalos Founder and
Chairman, Bill Bishop, made a public statement about the matter, claiming that Purina brought
suit to disparage and defame Blue Buffalo.
57.
Mr. Bishop made a second public statement regarding the original complaint on
May 8, 2014 (see Exhibit J), which stated, in part, as follows (emphasis added):
27
In my first letter I told you that Blue Buffalo would be responding

aggressively to Nestl Purinas lawsuit and its outrageous allegations with
regard to BLUEs product quality. The first phase of this response will be
a lawsuit against Nestl Purina, which will be filed in a matter of days. We
will be suing both their company and those individuals who are
responsible for this malicious attempt to undermine the trust of our pet
parents.
58.
Mr. Bishops statement put Purina in reasonable apprehension of suit for
defamation.
COUNT I
(False Advertising Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
59.
Purina repeats and incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth in
paragraphs 1 to 58 of this Complaint.

60.
Blue Buffalo, on or in connection with goods used in interstate commerce, made
and continues to make false statements of fact and false representations of fact as to the nature,
characteristics and/or qualities of its goods. Blue Buffalo has also made false statements of fact
and representations of fact as to the goods of its competitors.
61.
Blue Buffalos false statements of fact and false representations of fact were made
and continue to be made in commercial advertising and on product labels in a manner material to
the publics decision to purchase Blue Buffalos products rather than those of competitors,
including Purina.
62.
Such acts by Blue Buffalo constitute false statements, descriptions and
representations of fact in commercial advertising and are a violation of Section 43(a) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
63.
As a proximate result of Blue Buffalos willful conduct, Purina has suffered
irreparable harm, including irreparable harm to its reputation and goodwill and the reputation of
its products, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, and Purina will continue to suffer
28
irreparable injury unless and until Blue Buffalo ceases making false statements in connection
with and to advertise its products.
64.
Unless Blue Buffalos activities cease, Blue Buffalo will unjustly profit from sales
of its products that are based on consumer reliance on the false statements that it has made and is
making about its products. Purina has suffered and will continue to suffer economic harms,
including losses in sales as proximately caused by Blue Buffalos actions.
65.
Purina has suffered and will continue to suffer economic harms and injuries to its
commercial interests, including losses in sales, which have been and are being proximately
caused by Blue Buffalos actions and misrepresentations.
66.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Purina is entitled to actual damages to be
determined at trial, to have such damages trebled, to disgorgement of Blue Buffalos profits, and
to be reimbursed for the costs of this action and its related attorneys fees.
COUNT II
(Commercial Disparagement Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
67.

68.
Blue Buffalo, on or in connection with goods used in interstate commerce, made
and continues to make false comparisons of its products as compared to those of competitors,
including Purina.
69.
Blue Buffalos false statements of fact and false comparisons were made and
continue to be made in commercial advertising and on product labels in a manner material to the
publics decision to purchase Blue Buffalos products over those of competitors, including
Purina.
29
70.
Such acts by Blue Buffalo constitute false statements, descriptions and
representations of fact in commercial advertising and are a violation of Section 43(a) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
71.
As a proximate result of Blue Buffalos willful conduct, Purina has suffered
irreparable harm, including irreparable harm to its reputation and goodwill and the reputation of
its products, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, and Purina will continue to suffer
irreparable injury unless and until Blue Buffalo ceases making false statements and comparisons
in connection with and to advertise its products pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1116.
72.
Unless Blue Buffalos activities cease, Blue Buffalo will unjustly profit from sales
of its products that are based on consumer reliance on the false and deceptive comparisons that it
has made and is making about its products as compared to those of competitors, including
Purina.
73.
Purina has suffered and will continue to suffer economic harms and injuries to its
commercial interests, including losses in sales, which have been and are being proximately
caused by Blue Buffalos actions and misrepresentations.
74.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Purina is entitled to actual damages to be
determined at trial, to have such damage trebled, to disgorgement of Blue Buffalos profits, and
to be reimbursed for the costs of this action and its related attorneys fees.
COUNT III
(Common Law Unfair Competition)
75.

76.
Blue Buffalo has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair competition by
making false, misleading and deceptive statements about its products while disparaging the
30
products of competitors. Blue Buffalos misleading and deceptive statements have caused and
continue to cause consumers to purchase Blue Buffalos products over the products of
competitors, including Purina.
77.
Blue Buffalo acted and continues to act in bad faith in making claims about its
products that it knew and knows to be materially false and deceptive.

78.
Blue Buffalos acts constitute false advertising and unfair competition under the
common law of the State of Missouri.

COUNT IV
(Common Law Unjust Enrichment)
79.

80.
Blue Buffalo has enjoyed substantial profits from the sale of its products to
consumers who purchased Blue Buffalos products over the products of competitors based on
false statements made by Blue Buffalo, including that Blue Buffalos pet food products do not
contain chicken/poultry by-products meals when its products in fact do. These statements made
by Blue Buffalo include false comparative statements about the ingredients and nutritional values
of Blue Buffalos product as compared to those of competitors, including Purina.
81.
Blue Buffalo would not have made such sales or earned the profits therefrom but
for the misrepresentations and false statements that it made and continues to make about its
products. On information and belief, Blue Buffalos profits were further inflated via cost savings
for less expensive ingredients than advertised.
For example, poultry by-product meal is
generally less expensive than the real meat that Blue Buffalo references in its advertising.
82.
Blue Buffalos gain from sales of falsely advertised products and disparagement
of competitors came at the expense of competitors, including Purina.

31
83.
Blue Buffalo has been unjustly enriched as a result of its false statements and
misleading advertising practices, and under principles of equity should not be permitted to retain
these unjustly acquired gains.
COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment)
84.

85.
An actual and immediate controversy exists between the parties hereto in
connection with Blue Buffalos threats to sue Purina and certain unnamed individuals with
respect to the statements made in the original complaint and related statements to the media.
86.
Purina seeks a declaration by this Court that this action and related statements do
not constitute defamation, including because such statements are true and are privileged
statements made in connection with litigation.
87.
A declaration by this Court as outlined in paragraph 86 above would resolve all or
a complete part of the controversy between the parties as to this Count, prevent Blue Buffalo
from continuing to threaten legal action, determine the parties rights and responsibilities for the
statements made in this action and related statements, and be in the interests of justice.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Purina prays that the Court enter a judgment against Blue Buffalo:
(a)
Finding that, by the acts complained of above, Blue Buffalo has engaged
in false advertising in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);
(b)
Finding that, by the acts complained of above, Blue Buffalo has engaged
in false advertising in violation of Missouri common law;
(c)
Finding that the acts complained of above were willful;

32
(d)
Finding that Blue Buffalo has been unjustly enriched as a result of its false
advertising and false comparative advertising tactics;
(e)
Enjoining Blue Buffalo, its agents, servants, employees, officers, and all
persons in active concern and participation with Blue Buffalo from
making false and/or misleading statements about its products, including
statements that are likely to lead consumers to believe that its pet food
products are free from by-product meals or are of a human-grade quality;
(f)
Enjoining Blue Buffalo, its agents, servants, employees, officers, and all
persons in active concern and participation with Blue Buffalo from
making false and/or misleading statements about its products as compared
to those of competitors, including that its pet food products are more
nutritious, free from chicken/poultry by-product meals or are of a humangrade quality;
(g)
Requiring Blue Buffalo to engage in corrective advertising, including

advertising that informs consumers that Blue Buffalos pet food products
are not free from by-product meals and are not of a human-grade quality;
(h)
Requiring Blue Buffalo to destroy all product packaging and all other
materials displaying false statements, including that its pet food products
are free from by-product meals and are of human-grade quality (e.g., the
Feed them like family. slogan);
(i)
Declaring that this is an exceptional case due to the willful nature of

Blue Buffalos conduct;
33
(j)
Ordering Blue Buffalo to account to Purina for all gains, profits, savings
and advantages obtained by Blue Buffalo as a result of its false advertising
and unfair competition and disgorge to Purina restitution in the amount of
such gains, profits, savings and advantages;
(k)
Ordering Defendant to pay Purina:

i.
Treble actual damages, costs and reasonable attorneys fees

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117;
ii.
Blue Buffalos profits and cost savings from the sale of its
products resulting from its false advertising practices; and
iii.
(l)
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
Declaring that Purinas statements in this action and related statements are
not defamatory or otherwise actionable by Blue Buffalo; and
(m)
Awarding Purina such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Purina hereby demands a trial by jury.
34
Dated: November 13, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
NESTL PURINA PETCARE COMPANY
/s/ Carmine R. Zarlenga
Carmine R. Zarlenga 386244DC (Lead attorney)
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3227
Facsimile: (202) 263-5227
czarlenga@mayerbrown.com
Richard M. Assmus (pro hac vice)
Kristine M. Young (pro hac vice)
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
rassmus@mayerbrown.com
kyoung@mayerbrown.com
David A. Roodman, 38109MO
BRYAN CAVE LLP
211 North Broadway #3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
daroodman@bryancave.com
35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Second Amended Complaint to be served on all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service on this day of November 13, 2014 via the Courts CM/ECF
system.
s/ Carmine R. Zarlenga
Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104-1 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 1 of 47 PageID #: 2394
EXHIBIT A
Windsor Laboratories
894 Hawthorn Avenue Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Phone: (717) 796-0537 Fax: (717) 796-0537
Microscopic Evaluation of Agricultural Products
Members of the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS)
July23,2014
EXPERTREPORTOFJAMESV.MAKOWSKI
I.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
ThisReportsummarizesthemicroscopicanalysesIperformedonthefollowingpetfoodstodetermine
theiringredientcontent:
BlueBuffaloLifeProtectionAdultChickenandBrownRice(Dog)
BlueBuffaloFreedomAdultGrainFreeChicken(Dog)
BlueBuffaloWildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Dog)
BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Dog)
BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultDogs(Dog)
PurinaProPlanSELECTAdultGrainFreeFormula(Dog)
PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeBarleyRecipe(Dog)
BlueBuffaloLifeProtectionIndoorHealthChicken&BrownRiceRecipe(Cat)
BlueBuffaloFreedomGrainFreeChickenforIndoorCats(Cat)
BlueBuffaloWildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Cat)
BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Cat)
BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultCats(Cat)
PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeOatMealRecipe(Cat)
PurinaONEbeyOndSalmon&WholeBrownRiceRecipe(Cat)
Based on the microscopic analyses of these products, I conclude that several of the Blue Buffalo
productstestedcontainmeasurableamountsofchicken/poultrybyproductmealorgrains.
II.
EXPERIENCEANDQUALIFICATIONS
I, James V. Makowski, am presently employed by Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, as

Professor ofBiology. I teach courses including, among others, undergraduate courses onCellular and
Molecular Biology, Microbiology, and Genetics (all of which include units on microscopic analysis
methods and procedures) and conduct corresponding research. I also teach a senior undergraduate
courseinBioethics.IearnedaPh.D.inCurriculum&Instruction/ScienceEducationattheUniversityof
Delaware, a Master of Arts in Biology at West Chester State University and a Bachelor of Science in
Biology at Messiah College. I am the Owner and Microscopist of Windsor Laboratories of
Mechanicsburg,Pennsylvania,apositionIhaveheldfor28years.Inthiscapacity,Iconductmicroscopic
analysis for clients in the agricultural industry and related industries, including the pet food industry.
AttachedtothisreportasExhibit1ismycurriculumvitaestatingmyqualifications,includingalistofall
publicationsauthoredintheprevious10years.
I am an author and the lead editor ofMICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (4th ed.
2010), with Neil Vary, Marjorie McCutcheon and Pascal Veys, published by the American Oil Chemists
PUR_000207

Society.Thisbookistheleadingmanualforthemicroscopicanalysisofagriculturalproducts,including
animalproteinproducts,intheUnitedStatesandworldwide.Itisusedasaprimarytrainingresourceon
the subject of microscopic analysis of agricultural products by the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). I speak widely on the use of microscopy for purposes such as the detection of
prohibited protein in ruminant feed, including at workshops conducted by the FDA and National
InstitutesofHealth (NIH).Ihavealsotaughtnumerous35dayshortcoursesonusingmicroscopyto
identify components in various agricultural products for the Association of American Feed Control
Officials and the American Association of Cereal Chemists. I have instructed microscopists for the
American Soybean Association, including in Jamaica and Trinidad. I am also the Chairperson of the
TrainingCommitteefortheAgriculturalMicroscopyDivisionoftheAmericanOilChemistsSociety.
III.
SCOPEOFENGAGEMENT
IwasretainedinFebruary2014byNestlPurinaPetCaretoconductmicroscopicanalysisofseveraldog
andcatfoods.Atthetimeofmyretention,IwasaskedtoanalyzeandlistallingredientsthatIwasable
toidentifyinthedogandcatfoodsprovidedtome.Iwasnotawareofthereasonfortherequested
work until after I completed my analysis. I was not provided with any reasons, hypotheses,
expectations, suspicions, or goals associated with my analysis. After completing my independent
analysis, I was informed that the purpose of the requested work was to procure an independent and
unbiased analysis and determination of whether Blue Buffalo brand dog and cat foods contain any
ingredientsthatBlueBuffalosmarketingmaterialsclaimthattheydonotcontain,includingchickenand
poultrybyproductmealand,forsomeproducts,grains.
IV.
SOURCINGOFANALYZEDPRODUCTS
I was provided and received from Purina by personal delivery on February 27, 2014, the following
commercially available products: (i) 10 sealed, new, unopened bags of the Blue Buffalo products
identified above; and (ii) 4 sealed, new, unopened bags of Purina dog and cat pet foods as identified
above from Christopher Purschke at Purina. It is my understanding that these bags were obtained
commercially from a PetCo retail store in or near Mechanicsburg. On March 5, 2014, I received by
FederalExpressanadditional14unopenedbags,duplicatesoftheoriginalfoods,fromMarkRogersat
Purina. The purpose of sourcing duplicate products was to obtain samples from different geographic
regions and production batches. I transported the bags to the microbiology laboratory at Messiah
College, where they were securely stored pending examination. I personally inspected each bag to
ensurethattheywerenew,unopened,andingoodcondition.
TheunopenedbagswereidentifiedandtaggedonMarch12,2014.Eachcommercialproductpackage
wasrandomlyanduniquelylabeledusingasimplenumberingmethod(0012014,0022014,0032014,
etc.), and matching labels were applied to product sample bags (Ziploc brand freezer bags). An
approximately 200gram sample of pet food was removed and weighed from each identified
commercialproductpackageandplacedinthecorrespondinglabeledZiplocbag,whichwasthensealed.
Afterallofthepetfoodproductpackagingwaslabeled,andthecorrespondingsampleswereplacedand
sealedintheproperlyidentifiedandlabeledZiplocbags,thecommercialproductpackagingcontaining
theremainderofthepetfoodsshippedtomewasreturnedtoa lockedstorageroomintheMessiah
Collegemicrobiologylaboratory,whereitremainsasofthedateofthisreport.ItransportedtheZiploc
samplebagstoWindsorLaboratoriesforsecureretentionandanalysis.
V.
RESEARCHPROTOCOL(PROCEDURE)
PUR_000208

ThissectionprovidesadetaileddescriptionoftheproceduresIfollowedincarryingoutthemicroscopic
analysesoftheproductsamplesidentifiedabove.Agriculturalmicroscopyisanestablished,reliabletool
for determining ingredients present in a given product, particularly where the origins of the product
and/or its ingredients are unknown. By separating the constituents of a given sample by density and
characterizing the particles by shape, color, size, softness/hardness, texture, luster, odor and other
histological and morphological features using a microscope, a microscopist can reliably identify and
quantifythoseconstituentsinthesamplebycomparingthemtoknownstandards.Indeed,asInoted
above,thistechniqueisroutinelyusedbytheFDAandothersinthefoodindustrytoidentifyingredients
infoodproducts.Themicroscopicanalysismethodologiesusedtoobtaintheresultssummarizedinthis
Report are the same as those I have used for the past 28 years when performing similar analyses
relatingtononlitigationprojects.
A.
PreparationoftheSamplesforAnalysis
IloggedineachsamplebagbycodenumberinmylabnotebookatWindsorLaboratories,assigningeach
toanexaminationboard.Ipreparedandinspectedeachproductsampleindividuallyinordertoensure
thattherewasnoconfusionormistakeregardingthespecificsamplesbeingtested.WhenIcompleted
thepreparation,analysis,andrecordingofresultsforeachuniquelyidentifiedsample,Ireturnedunused
materialstothecorrespondinguniquelyidentifiedsamplebagandthoroughlycleanedtheareaandall
toolsemployedbeforeproceedingtothenextsamplebag.
In the majority of cases, the samples were comprised of kibble and dark bits. In all such cases, I
personally and manually separated the kibble and dark bit components, and then weighed each
componentusinganOhausE400Danalyticalbalance.Ithencalculatedandrecordedthepercentages
ofkibbleanddarkbitsinmylabnotebook.
After weighing each component (kibble and dark bits), I subdivided them into combined quarters and
oppositequartersforsamplepreparationandanalysis.Thiswasdonebyspreadingeachsampleonto
parchmentpaper,dividingintoquadrants(upperleft,upperright,lowerleftandlowerright)andthen
samplingthediagonallyoppositequarters.Quarteringinthiswayisanacceptedprocedureforensuring
astatisticallyvalidsample.SeeMICROSCOPICANALYSISOFAGRICULTURALPRODUCTS(2010)at3.This
aliquot was then ground in a grain flour mill to crush the particles without causing any damage to
cellular components, and 2 grams of the ground sample were transferred into a Coors porcelain
evaporatingdish.Allequipmentwascleanedthoroughlybeforeeachuse.Theremainderof200gram
sampleswerebagged,sealedandstoredatWindsorLaboratories.
B.
SampleSeparationbyFlotation:
After transferring representative 2gram samples into clean evaporating dishes, I added 6 ml of a 1:1
carbontetrachloride:chloroformmixturetotheevaporatingdishandstirredthesamplethoroughlyto
allowmineral,boneandotherheavycomponentstosettle.Itransferredthematerialthatfloatedtothe
top by pouring the CCL4:CHCL3, into another evaporating dish. The mineral/bone fraction, typically
referred to as the heavy fraction, was allowed to evaporate to dryness, which took approximately
thirtyminutes.
Ithenadded2mlofpetroleumethertotheCCL4:CHCL3mixturecontainingthefloatingmaterial.This
altersthedensityoftheliquid,whichcausesalessdensefractionofthesampletofloattothesurface.
Thefloatingmaterialisthenpouredoffontoadryingmedium,leavingbehindamoredensefraction.I
stirredthismixturethoroughly,transferredthefloatingmaterialtofiltermedium,andallowedittodry.
PUR_000209

I added additional 2ml aliquots of CCHL3 until no material floated. This procedure resulted in 3 or 4
densitydependentfractionsofingredientsinlightertoheavierorder.Allfractionswereallowedtodry
for at least thirty minutes. This is the accepted method of separating material by density for
microscopicexamination.SeeMICROSCOPICANALYSISOFAGRICULTURALPRODUCTS(2010)at57.
IthenweighedeachfractionontheOhausE400Danalyticalbalancetothenearest0.01g,recordingthe
resultsinmylabnotebook.Onceafractionwasweighed,itwastransferredontoanew,clean,black
MasoniteexaminationboardproducedatWindsorLaboratories,onwhichtheparticleswerespreadto
ensureasinglelayerofmaterialformicroscopicanalysis.
C.
MicroscopicExaminationoftheProductSamples
Imicroscopicallyexaminedeachfraction,fromheaviesttolightest,usingaNikonModel76210stereo
microscopeonabotanicalboomat1020X,whichisthestandardrangeforanalysisofparticlesofthis
type. See MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (2010) at 23. For each fraction, I
listed and recorded all identified components in my lab notebook and calculated and recorded the
approximatepercentageofeachcomponentusingstandardmethods.SeeMICROSCOPICANALYSISOF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (2010) at 57. I identified each component by comparing it to a reference
libraryofknowningredientsandwithmyknowledgeofparticlecharacteristicsbasedonmyextensive
experience with examination of similar particles. I estimated the proportion of each component by
visually estimating the percentage of each type of particle viewed through the microscope. This was
repeatedforeachfractionandthetotalsforeachcomponentpresentwerecalculated.
In instances where I was unable to identify a specific particle when doing this type of analysis with
certainty, I transferred the relevant particle to a Nikon Alphaphot YS compound microscope for more
detailed examination. These particles were placed on a new, clean microscope slide and a drop of
mounting medium added. The mounting medium used is a 1:1:1 (v/w/v) mixture of distilled water,
chloral hydrate and glycerol, which helps to displace trapped air and allow some ingredients of finer
cellular structure to be more readily observable. See MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS (2010) at 5. I then observed the particle under the compound microscope (100400x) to
determine cellular structure for identification. Identification of components at this magnification is
basedoncellularstructureratherthanoncharacteristicsoflargerparticles.
The samples from the examination boards were retained for a period of one month but were then
discardedbecausesamplesundergoanunacceptabledegreeofdecompositionbeyondthispoint.
VI.
RESULTSOFTHEMICROSCOPICANALYSIS
Aspreviouslynoted,theidentitiesofthe28sampleswereblindedduringmyanalysis.OnceIcompleted
myanalysisandrecordedmyresultsinthelaboratorynotebook,thecodedlognumberscorresponding
to each Ziploc bag sample were matched to the corresponding numbers placed on the commercial
productpackaging.Atthatpoint,Iaddedthecommercialnamesofsomeoftheexaminedpetfoodsto
the entries in the lab notebook. Up until this time, I was unaware of the purpose of the requested
analysisofthesamplesandofanyhypothesesbeingtested.
Ithencomparedtheingredientsidentifiedbymymicroscopicanalysistothelabelsofeachdogorcat
food tested. The results of my testing and analysis reveal that in some instances, the Blue Buffalo
products that I tested contained poultry byproduct meal, even though the packaging indicated the
PUR_000210

contrary.ThiswasespeciallyevidentinthetwosamplesofBlueBuffaloLifeProtectionIndoorChicken
& Brown Rice Formula. In both the original and duplicate samples, I found approximately 2224%
poultrybyproductmealpresentinthekibble.InbothinstancesIfoundsmallfragmentsofeggshell,
rawfeatherandlegscale.Further,inseveralBlueBuffalosamples,Ifoundquantitiesofgrainpresent
wherethecorrespondingproductswerelabeledasbeinggrainfree.Forillustrativepurposes,photos
of representative poultry byproduct and grain particles are attached in Exhibit 2, a Photographic
Appendixtothisreport.ThetablebelowsummarizestheresultsfortheBlueBuffaloproductsamples.
Discrepanciesbetweenthepackageclaimandmyresultsareboldedandhighlightedinyellow.
BlueBuffalo
Product
Component
WildernessAdult
ChickenRecipe
(Dog)
WildernessAdult
ChickenRecipe(Cat)
LongevityAdult
Dogs
LongevityAdult
Cats
LifeProtection
%Riceand/orCorn
(TwoSamples)
PackageClaim
Kibble
%PoultryBy
ProductMeal(Two
Samples)
0%,0%
0%,0%
DarkBits
9%,11%
2.2%,1.5%
Kibble
0%,0%
0%,1%
DarkBits
8%,5%
2.2%,2.5%
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal/No
Grains
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal/No
Kibble
DarkBits
Kibble
DarkBits
Kibble
0%,0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2%,1%
0%,0%
3%,0%
22%,24%
IndoorHealth
2%,2%
Chicken&Brown
DarkBits
N/A
RiceRecipe
LifeProtection
Kibble
22%,0%
N/A
AdultChicken&
DarkBits
0%,0%
N/A
BrownRice(Dog)
FreedomAdult
Kibble
0%,0%
0%,0%
GrainfreeChicken
2%, 2%
3%, 1%
DarkBits
(Dog)
FreedomGrain
Kibble
0%,0%
0%,0%
FreeChickenfor
2%, 1%
2%, 2%
DarkBits
IndoorCats
BasicsAdult
Kibble
0%,0%
N/A
Turkey&Potato
DarkBits
2%,2%
N/A
(Cat)
BasicsAdult
Kibble
0%,0%
N/A
Turkey&Potato
DarkBits
0%,0%
N/A
(Dog)
Thefullresultsofmyanalysesoftheproductsareprovidedonthefollowingpages.
Grains
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal/No
Grains
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal/No
Grains
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
NoPoultryBy
ProductMeal
PUR_000211
Windsor Laboratories
894 Hawthorn Avenue Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Phone: (717) 796-0537 Fax: (717) 796-0537
Microscopic Evaluation of Agricultural Products
Members of the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS)
April21,2014
Sample:BlueBuffalo;WildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Dog);5961000270BIUBMAR0315L121
09:20
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
96.0
DarkBits
4.0
Sample:0012014(Kibble)
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken/TurkeyMeal
36
Chicken
26
TotalFat
15
TotalStarch
12
VegetablePomace
8
TotalChloridesasNaCl
0.5
DehydratedAlfalfaMeal
0.2
pH=6.0
Sample:0012014(DarkBits)
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
48
TotalFat
16
Starch
8
PoultryByProductMeal
9
8
PeaFiber
4
RiceHulls
2
VegetablePomace
2
0.6
GroundYellowCorn
0.2
pH=5.8
PUR_000212
2.
Sample:BlueBuffaloWildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Cat);5961000140BIUBFEB0415B310620
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
98.2
DarkBits
1.8
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken/TurkeyMeal
36
Chicken
26
TotalFat
15
TotalStarch
12
VegetablePomace
8
0.5
0.2
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
50
TotalFat
16
Starch
9
8
8
PeaFiber
3
RiceHulls
2
VegetablePomace
2
0.6
GroundYellowCorn
0.2
pH=5.8
PUR_000213
3.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultDogs;5961000802BIUBJAN0815L13110:45
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
92.4
DarkBits
7.6
EstimatedPercent:
Fish
28
FishMeal
18
GroundRice
16
GroundBarley
15
TotalFat
11
Starch
10
0.5
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
62
TotalFat
12
Starch
8
8
PeaFiber
5
2
RiceHulls
1
VegetablePomace
0.3
0.6
GroundYellowCorn
0.2
CalciumCarbonate
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.8
PUR_000214
4.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultCats;5961000814BIUBJUN1314L13215:02
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
93.0
DarkBits
7.0
EstimatedPercent:
FishMeal
32
Fish
19
TotalFat
17
GroundRice
16
GroundOats
8
GroundBarley
6
0.7
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
50
TotalFat
16
12
Starch
10
PeaFiber
4
3
VegetablePomace
2
RiceHulls
1
0.7
GroundYellowCorn
0.2
pH=6.0
PUR_000215
5.
Sample:LifeProtectionIndoorHealthChicken&BrownRiceRecipe;5961000087FEB0915J220439
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
91.5
DarkBits
8.5
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
28
22
TotalFat
17
GroundBarley
12
GroundRice
8
GroundOats
5
FishMeal
3
Flax(Linseed)
3
0.7
Carrot
0.2
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
54
TotalFat
17
Starch
10
8
PeaFiber
5
2
VegetablePomace
1
RiceHulls
1
0.7
GroundYellowCorn
0.2
pH=6.0
10
PUR_000216
6.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLifeProtectionAdultChicken&BrownRice(Dog);5961000011BIUBJAN1515
T481:15
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
95.5
DarkBits
4.5
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
20
22
TotalFat
15
GroundRice
15
GroundBarley
10
TotalStarch
8
VegetablePomace
6
2
0.5
Flax
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.5
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
58
TotalFat
15
TotalStarch
8
7
PeaFiber
4
VegetablePomace
3
GroundYellowCorn
2
RiceHulls
1
0.6
pH=5.8
11
PUR_000217
7.
Sample:BlueBuffaloFreedomAdultGrainFeeChicken(Dog);5961000680BIUBMAR1715VS06:20
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
93.8
DarkBits
6.2
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
32
Chicken
21
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
10
Peas
8
VegetablePomace
7
2
Flax(Linseed)
2
0.7
pH=5.2
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
57
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
9
8
PeaFiber
5
2
GroundYellowCorn
2
RiceHulls
1
0.6
pH=5.4
12
PUR_000218
8.
Sample:BlueBuffaloFreedomGrainFeeChickenforIndoorCats;5961000707BIUBJAN1215P1614
33K14
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
95.7
DarkBits
4.3
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
32
ChickenMeal
28
TotalFat
14
TotalStarch
14
PeaFiber
6
Flax(Linseed)
2
1
VegetablePomace
1
0.58
pH=5.7
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
53
TotalFat
15
9
PeaFiber
8
TotalStarch
8
2
RiceHulls
2
VegetablePomace
1
0.6
pH=5.7
13
PUR_000219
9.
Sample:BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Cat);5961000727BIUBMAY0614P173733BO5
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
96.1
DarkBits
3.9
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
35
ChickenMeal
24
TotalStarch
16
TotalFat
12
PeaFiber
6
Flax(Linseed)
2
VegetablePomace
2
1
0.60
pH=5.5
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
54
TotalFat
16
10
PeaFiber
7
TotalStarch
7
2
RiceHulls
1
VegetablePomace
1
0.6
pH=5.7
14
PUR_000220
10.
Sample:BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Dog);5961000752BIUBMAR0515P104133MO5
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
96.1
DarkBits
3.9
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
50
ChickenMeal
22
TotalStarch
12
TotalFat
12
2
VegetablePomace
0.2
RiceHulls
0.2
0.60
DicalciumPhosphate
Trace(<0.1%)
KCl
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.6
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
56
TotalFat
16
PeaFiber
12
TotalStarch
8
4
GroundYellowCorn
2
RiceHulls
0.2
0.56
pH=5.5
15
PUR_000221
11.
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndSalmon&WholeBrownRiceRecipe;1780012702328160010110L04
EstimatedPercent:
DarkKibble
58.7
LightKibble
41.3
Sample:0112014(DarkKibble)
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
24
Fish
22
TotalFat
18
GroundRice
15
SoybeanMeal
8
FishMeal
4
GroundBarley
4
GroundOats
2
SoyProteinIsolate
0.5
BeetPulp
0.5
0.60
pH=5.8
Sample:0112014(LightKibble)
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
25
Fish
23
TotalFat
16
GroundRice
16
SoybeanMeal
7
FishMeal
5
GroundBarley
3
GroundOats
2
SoyProteinIsolate
0.5
BeetPulp
Trace(<0.1%)
0.60
pH=5.7
16
PUR_000222
12.
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeOatMealRecipe;1780014418
331560012305L05
EstimatedPercent:
DarkKibble
58.7
LightKibble
41.3
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
27
ChickenMeal
22
TotalFat
17
GroundRice
13
SoybeanMeal
11
GroundBarley
6
GroundOats
2
SoyProteinIsolate
0.5
BeetPulp
0.5
0.6
pH=5.7
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
26
ChickenMeal
20
TotalFat
17
GroundRice
12
SoybeanMeal
12
GroundBarley
8
GroundOats
2
SoyProteinIsolate
0.2
BeetPulp
0.3
VegetablePomace
0.1
0.5
CalciumCarbonate
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.8
17
PUR_000223
13.
Sample:PurinaProPlanSELECTAdultGrainFreeFormula(Dog);3810015196307110820548Ll5
Kibble(0132014)
EstimatedPercent:
CanolaMeal
28
Chicken
26
TotalFat
18
TotalStarch
18
FishMeal
4
PeaFiber
3
NaCl
0.6
BeetPulp
0.5
pH=5.7
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeBarleyRecipe(Dog);1780014936
331810850201L04
Kibble(0142014)
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
36
GroundRice
22
TotalFat
18
CanolaMeal
12
GroundBarley
10
NaCl
0.58
CalciumCarbonate
0.1
VegetablePomace
Trace(<0.1%)
KCl
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.6
18
PUR_000224
14.
Sample:BlueBuffaloFreedomGrainFeeChickenforIndoorCats;BIUBSEP0514J111635
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
94.9
DarkBits
5.1
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
33
ChickenMeal
28
TotalFat
13
TotalStarch
15
PeaFiber
5
Flax(Linseed)
2
1.5
VegetablePomace
0.5
0.6
pH=5.8
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
52
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
10
8
PeaFiber
7
RiceHulls
2
VegetablePomace
2
0.71
pH=5.7
19
PUR_000225
15.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultCats;BIUBNOV2914L13301:12
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
90.0
DarkBits
10.0
EstimatedPercent:
FishMeal
20
Fish
20
GroundRice
18
TotalFat
16
GroundOats
12
GroundBarley
12
0.6
pH=6.1
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
54
TotalFat
15
9
Starch
8
PeaFiber
4
VegetablePomace
4
RiceHulls
2
GroundYellowCorn
1
WheatMiddlings
1
0.5
pH=6.3
20
PUR_000226
16.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLifeProtectionAdultChicken&BrownRice(Dog);BIUBJAN1415T1C16:02
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
91.0
DarkBits
9.0
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
22
ChickenMeal
20
TotalFat
14
GroundRice
13
GroundBarley
12
TotalStarch
8
VegetablePomace
8
1
0.51
pH=5.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
52
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
10
8
PeaFiber
6
VegetablePomace
3
GroundYellowCorn
2
RiceHulls
2
0.6
pH=5.0
21
PUR_000227
17.
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndSalmon&WholeBrownRiceRecipe;400710831313L05BIUBJUL2015
EstimatedPercent:
DarkKibble
54.2
LightKibble
45.8
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
26
Fish
21
TotalFat
18
GroundRice
14
SoybeanMeal
7
FishMeal
5
GroundBarley
3
GroundOats
3
SoyProteinIsolate
0.5
BeetPulp
0.5
0.58
pH=5.7
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
27
Fish
22
TotalFat
16
GroundRice
15
SoybeanMeal
8
FishMeal
4
GroundBarley
3
GroundOats
3
SoyProteinIsolate
0.2
BeetPulp
0.1
0.62
pH=5.8
22
PUR_000228
Sample:BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Cat);BIUBSEP08142321933
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
97.7
DarkBits
2.3
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
35
ChickenMeal
20
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
15
PeaFiber
7
Flax(Linseed)
2
2
VegetablePomace
1
0.50
pH=5.5
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
55
TotalFat
15
11
PeaFiber
6
TotalStarch
6
2
RiceHulls
2
VegetablePomace
0.5
0.6
pH=5.7
18.
23
PUR_000229
19.
Sample:BlueBuffaloWildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Cat);BIUBMAR0215B311446
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
96.1
DarkBits
3.9
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
32
Chicken
31
TotalFat
18
FishMeal
9
TotalStarch
8
RiceHulls
1
0.7
0.69
BloodMeal
0.1
pH=5.7
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
58
TotalFat
14
Starch
8
5
7
PeaFiber
4
RiceHulls
1.5
GroundYellowCorn
1
0.4
CalciumCarbonate
0.1
pH=5.5
24
PUR_000230
20.
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeBarleyRecipe(Dog);BIUBJAN2015
319710830939L09
Kibble(0212014):
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
35
GroundRice
24
TotalFat
18
CanolaMeal
11
GroundBarley
10
NaCl
0.61
CalciumCarbonate
0.1
VegetablePomace
Trace(<0.1%)
KCl
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.8
25
PUR_000231
21.
Sample:BlueBuffaloBasicsAdultTurkey&Potato(Dog);BIUBAPR0815P200534RO8
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
96.9
DarkBits
3.1
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
48
ChickenMeal
22
TotalStarch
13
TotalFat
12
3
VegetablePomace
0.2
0.70
DicalciumPhosphate
Trace(<0.1%)
KCl
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.4
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
55
TotalFat
16
PeaFiber
14
TotalStarch
9
3
GroundYellowCorn
1.5
RiceHulls
0.3
0.61
pH=5.7
26
PUR_000232
22.
Sample:BlueBuffaloFreedomAdultGrainFeeChicken(Dog);BIUBFEB0415P011733L06
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
95.8
DarkBits
4.2
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
32
Chicken
25
TotalFat
15
TotalStarch
8
VegetablePomace
8
Peas
6
2
Flax(Linseed)
2
0.7
pH=5.2
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
55
TotalFat
16
TotalStarch
10
9
PeaFiber
3
2
VegetablePomace
2
GroundYellowCorn
1
0.61
pH=5.0
27
PUR_000233
23.
Sample:BlueBuffaloLongevityLongevityforAdultDogs;BIUBNOV2614L12301:52
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
84.0
DarkBits
16.0
EstimatedPercent:
Fish
25
GroundRice
20
GroundBarley
18
FishMeal
15
TotalFat
12
TotalStarch
8
0.4
Carrots
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
67
TotalFat
11
Starch
8
6
PeaFiber
4
1
RiceHulls
0.5
VegetablePomace
0.2
0.4
GroundYellowCorn
0.1
CalciumCarbonate
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=6.0
28
PUR_000234
24.
Sample:PurinaONEbeyOndWhiteMeatChicken&WholeOatMealRecipe;BIUBJUL201533471083
0419L05
EstimatedPercent:
DarkKibble
51.1
LightKibble
48.9
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
28
ChickenMeal
18
TotalFat
17
GroundRice
15
SoybeanMeal
12
GroundBarley
7
BeetPulp
0.2
VegetablePomace
0.2
SoyProteinIsolate
0.1
CalciumCarbonate
0.1
0.6
pH=5.7
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
28
ChickenMeal
20
TotalFat
16
GroundRice
12
SoybeanMeal
11
GroundBarley
9
GroundOats
1
SoyProteinIsolate
0.3
BeetPulp
0.3
VegetablePomace
0.2
0.5
CalciumCarbonate
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.2
29
PUR_000235
25.
Sample:BlueBuffalo;WildernessAdultChickenRecipe(Dog);BIUBFEB2515L12304:25
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
92.0
DarkBits
8.0
EstimatedPercent:
ChickenMeal
35
Chicken
28
TotalFat
14
TotalStarch
12
VegetablePomace
7
Flax(Linseed)
1.5
DehydratedAlfalfaMal
0.3
0.54
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
50
TotalFat
15
11
8
Starch
7
PeaFiber
3
VegetablePomace
2
RiceHulls
1.5
0.55
Dirt&Grit
Trace(<0.1%)
pH=5.8
30
PUR_000236
26.
Sample:PurinaProPlanSELECTAdultGrainFreeFormula(Dog);BIUBSEP2014307110821052L15
Kibble(0272014)
EstimatedPercent:
CanolaMeal
26
Chicken
25
TotalFat
18
TotalStarch
18
FishMeal
6
PeaFiber
4
NaCl
0.54
BeetPulp
0.5
pH=5.8
31
PUR_000237
27.
Sample:LifeProtectionIndoorHealthChicken&BrownRiceRecipe;BIUBAPR2415B420041
EstimatedPercent:
Kibble
80.3
DarkBits
19.7
EstimatedPercent:
Chicken
30
24
TotalFat
16
GroundBarley
12
GroundRice
7
GroundOats
6
FishMeal
3
0.6
Carrot
0.1
pH=6.0
EstimatedPercent:
Flax(Linseed)
52
TotalFat
16
Starch
12
8
PeaFiber
6
2
VegetablePomace
1
RiceHulls
1
0.62
GroundYellowCorn
0.1
pH=6.0
32
PUR_000238
33
PUR_000239
EXHIBIT1
CURRICULUMVITAE
PUR_000240
Messiah College-Department of Natural Sciences

Grantham, PA 17027
(717) 766-2511
Curriculum Vitae
JAMES V. MAKOWSKI
Home Address:
894 Hawthorn Avenue

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Office Address:
Department of Natural Sciences
Messiah College
Grantham, PA 17027
Education:
1976
1978-79
1980
1991
B.A.
Messiah College (Biology)

Trenton State University, NSF Fellowship
M.A. West Chester State University (Biology)
Ph.D. University of Delaware (Curriculum & Instruction/ Science
Education)
Teaching Experience:
1975-76
1976-81
1981-86
1986-1992
1993-1999
2000-
Messiah College, Teaching Assistant

Central Bucks School District, Senior High School Biology
Messiah College, Instructor in Biology
Messiah College, Assistant Professor of Biology
Messiah College, Associate Professor of Biology
Messiah College, Professor of Biology
PUR_000241
While at Messiah College, I have taught the following courses in the Department
of Biological Sciences:
BIO 150 Biology I (First semester Biology majors)
BIO 102 Bioscience (Non-majors Biology)
BIO 106 Life Science for Elementary Education (Biological principles for
BIO 114 Heredity & Human Affairs (Ethics based genetics course for nonBIO 281 Genetics (Introductory genetics for majors)
BIO 313 Developmental Biology (for majors)
BIO 347 Comparative Anatomy (for majors)
BIO 381 Microbiology (for biology majors)
BIO 382 Microbiology for Health Professionals (for nursing & pre-med majors)
NSC 496 Science Seminar (Capstone course for senior majors)
IDS 101 First Year Seminar: Science & the Media
IDS 101 First Year Seminar: Science in Science Fiction
IDS 101 First Year Seminar: Science Fiction & Society
IDST 300 Genetics & Society
BIOL189 Genetics for Health Professionals
BIOL160 Introduction to Cellular & Molecular Biology
BIOL 260 Genetics & Development
BIOL 317 Bioethics
BIOL/CHEM 495 Capstone
I also am responsible for teaching BIO 407 & CHE 407 Secondary Subject
Methods: Science for students majoring in biology and chemistry who wish to
become secondary teaching certification. In addition, I supervise these students
during their professional semester of student teaching.
Additional Professional Experience:

1986-87
1988
1989
Hershey Foods Corporation. Consultant in Food Microbiology,

Polyclinic Medical Center, Faculty Intern to Medical Microbiology
Laboratory, 1988
Quaker Oats Corporation, Faculty Intern in Quality Assurance
Lab, Shiremanstown, PA, 1989. Responsible for the development
of several new procedures for quality assurance laboratory.
PUR_000242
1987-present Owner, Windsor Laboratories a private consulting laboratory for

forensic microscopy of animal feed and human food, as well
unknown particles, etc.
Awards:
1991
Robert T Stegnar award in Science Education. Recognizes the

graduate student who has made the most significant contributions
to the advancement of science education. The University of
Delaware, May, 1991.
Publications:
Makowski, J. (1979). Nucleosomes: Intracellular chromatin packaging units.
Unpublished Research Article, West Chester University, 1979.
Makowski, J. (1980). Autecology of the White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). Unpublished research article, West Chester University,
1980.
Makowski, J. (1983). Concepts of Biology Laboratory Manual, Messiah College,
1983.
Makowski, J. (1988). Problem-solving in genetics: A review. Unpublished
Makowski, J. (1991). High school teachers' conceptions of genetics and their
Makowski, J. (1992). The influence of curriculum content knowledge of genetics
instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol 31, 2, February,
1994.
Makowski, J. (1992). A Microbiologist's View of Feed Microbiology.
Proceedings of the American Association of Feed Microscopists, Vol. 39,
1.
Makowski, J. (1996). The Use of Polarized Light Microscopy. Proceeding of
the American Association of Feed Microscopists, Vol. 43, 2
PUR_000243
Makowski, J. (1998). Feed Microscopy: An Undervalued Quality Assurance

Technique. Inform (9), 11, November, 1999.
Makowski, J. (2000). Electrophoretic Separation of Mammalian Hair Proteins as
a Means of Species Identification of Meat & Bone Meal Sources in
Animal Feeds. Inform (11), April 2000.
Makowski, J. (2006). Microscopy Techniques for the Identification of Animal
Protein Products. Inform.(17), September 2006
Makowski, J., Ed., (2011). Microscopic Analysis of Agricultural Products, 4th
Ed., Champagne, IL, AOCS Press.
Presentations:
"The Effects of Varied Instructional Strategies on Student Problem-Solving
Behaviors." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern
"Inhibition of Salmonella sp. in Extruded Feeds." A Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Feed Microscopists,
"Hands-on Science Activities for Elementary School Students." Capital Area
Intermediate Unit Regional In-Service day, October, 1991.
"Classroom-Tested Recommendations for Improving High School Genetics
Instruction." Capital Area Intermediate Unit In-Service day, October,
"The Influence of Curriculum Content Knowledge on Genetics Instruction." A
Paper presented at the Fourth Meeting of the International Consortium
"A Microbiologist's View of Feed Microscopy." A paper presented at the 42nd
Annual Meeting of the American Association of Feed Microscopists, St. Louis,
MO, June 1992.
Identification of Feed Ingredients Using Stereo- and Compound Microscopy,
July, 1995, The University of the West Indies Veterinary College, Kingston,
Jamaica
Microscopic Identification of Antibiotics, Vitamins, and Minerals,@ July, 1996,
The University of Mexico Veterinary College, Mexico City, Mexico.
PUR_000244
"Polarized Light Microscopy and Its Applications to Feed Microscopy." A paper

presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Feed
Microscopists, Iowa City, IA, June, 1996.
The Role of Feed Microscopy in Feed Management,@ May, 1997, The Annual
Meeting of The American Oil Chemists Society, Seattle, WA
Differential Mammalian Hair Morphology as a Means of Identifying Meat &
Bone Meal Sources in Animal Feeds,@ May, 1998, The Annual Meeting of the
American Oil Chemists Society, Chicago, IL
Identifying Animal Protein Products in Animal Feeds, May, 2001, The Annual
Meeting of the American Oil Chemists Society, Minneapolis, MN
Identification of Feed Ingredients Endemic to Caribbean Countries, June, 2002,
The University of the West Indies, Kingston Jamaica
Identification of Feed Ingredients Endemic to Caribbean Countries, June, 2002,
The University of the West Indies, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
Feed Microscopy: Basic and Advanced Techniques, June 2003, Purdue University
Department of Veterinary Science, W. Lafayette, IN
Methods for Identification of Mammalian Proteins using Stereo and Compound
Microscopy, May 2005, American Oil Chemists Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO
Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) in North American Elk, May
2006, American Oil Chemists Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL
Chronic Wasting Disease and Potential Transmission to Humans, May, 2007,
American Oil Chemists Annual Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec
Current Policies Regarding the Ruminant Feeding Ban in Response to BSE, May,
2007, American Oil Chemists Annual Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec
Chronic Wasting Disease and Potential transmission to Humans, May 2009,
American Oil Chemists Annual Meeting, Orlando.
PUR_000245
Microscopy as a Means of Identification of Banned Animal Proteins in

Agricultural Products. June 2011, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda,
MD.
Membership in Professional Societies:

American Genetic Association
American Association of Agricultural Microscopists
American Scientific Affiliation
American Oil Chemists Society
American Society of Microbiologists
Central Pennsylvania Microbiology Association
Eastern Educational Research Association
National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching
National Association of College Science Teachers
Offices Held:
Vice President, American Association of Agricultural Microscopists, 1995-96
President, American Association of Agricultural Microscopists, 1996-98
Division Council Representative, American Oil Chemists Association, 1996-98
Chair, Training Committee, AOCS Microscopy Division, 1996-present.
Member at Large, Agricultural Microscopy Division, American Oil Chemists
Society, 2002-present
Chair, Agricultural Microscopy Check Sample Program, American Oil Chemists
Society 2008-2012
Committees:
1982-85
1983-84
19831992-98
1992-94
1995-96
1998-2000
Faculty Growth and Development Team

Faculty Growth and Development Team Secretary
Teacher Education Committee
Committee on Assessment of Student Outcomes
General Education Committee
Committee on Review of Summer Academic Offerings
Ranked Faculty Affairs Committee
PUR_000246
2001-2004
2005-2008
2006-2007
2008-2009
2011-2012
Senator, School of Health & Natural Sciences

Senator, School of Health & Natural Sciences
Natural Sciences Laboratory Sciences Curriculum Committee
Term Tenure & Promotion Committee
Assessment of 3rd and 4th Year Programs in Biological Sciences
Miscellaneous:
Taught the Microbiology component of the Basic Technical Training Course,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), October, 1990.
Attended Chautauqua Short Course in Recombinant DNA Methodologies,
California State University, San Francisco, CA, June, 1991.
Taught an Advanced Microscopy Techniques Short Course for the American
Association of Feed Microscopists, Dayton, OH, June, 1994
Association of Feed Microscopists, San Antonio, TX, June, 1995
Taught a combined Basic and Advanced Short Course in Microscopy
Techniques, the University of the West Indies, July, 1995.
Association of Feed Microscopists, Iowa City, IA, June, 1996
Taught an Advanced course in chemical spot testing for antibiotics, vitamins,
and minerals, the University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, June, 1996
Served on a validation-standards setting panel for new teacher licensure by
Educational Testing Services for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, in
Camp Hill, PA, April 1-2, 1997.
Taught an Advance course in microscope techniques, with particular attention to
the use of polarized light microscopy. The American Oil Chemists Association,
Seattle, WA, May, 1997.
Taught an advanced course in ingredient identification for the American
Association of Feed Microscopists, Nashville, TN, June, 1997.
PUR_000247
Hair Morphology as a Means of Identification of Mammalian Species in

Ruminant Feeds. May, 1998, The Annual Meeting of the American Oil Chemists
Society, Chicago, IL
A Short Course on the Microscopy of Marine, Poultry and Meat Products. May,
1999, The Annual Meeting of the American Oil Chemists Society, Orlando, FL
Taught a Short Course on Feed Microscopy, with Emphasis on Animal Protein
Products. November, 2001, Northern Crops Institute, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND.
Primary Instructor for the Advanced Agricultural Microscopy Short Course, May,
2007, Quebec City, Quebec
Taught Intensive Short course in Forensic Microscopy, University of the West
Indies, Kingston, Jamaica and Port of Spain, Trinidad, 2008
Taught Intensive Course on Agricultural Microscopy with Emphasis on Animal
Protein Products. June, 2011, Cincinnati, OH.
Alizarin Red as a means of Identifying Muscle Tissue in Ruminant Feeds. May,
2014, The Annual Meeting of the American Oil Chemists Society, San Antonio,
TX.
Married, three children
PUR_000248
EXHIBIT2
PHOTOGRAPHICAPPENDIX
AlloftheimagesbelowweretakenthroughaNikonSMZ745TStereoMicroscopeandcapturedwitha
ZeissAxiocamERc5scameraat20Xmagnification,andweretakenoftheactualBlueBuffaloproduct
samplesanalyzedintheresearchdescribedinmyreport.
Figure1.Chickenorpoultrylegscale,fromBlueBuffaloLifeProtectionIndoorHealthChicken&
BrownRiceRecipe(kibble),samplecode0052014.
PUR_000249
Figure2.Rawchickenorpoultryfeather,fromBlueBuffaloLifeProtectionIndoorHealthChicken&
BrownRiceRecipe(kibble),samplecode0052014.
PUR_000250
Figure3.Chickenorpoultryeggshellfragment,fromBlueBuffaloLifeProtectionIndoorHealth
Chicken&BrownRiceRecipe(kibble),samplecode0052014.
PUR_000251
Figure4.Ricehullparticle,fromBlueBuffaloFreedomAdultGrainFreeChicken(Dog)(darkbits),
samplecode0072014.
PUR_000252
EXHIBIT B

Case #5696
(03/11/14)
BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD.

BLUE Brand Pet Food Products
Challenger:
Product Type:
Issue:
Disposition:
Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.

Pet Products
Nutrition Claims/Disparagement Claims
Substantiated In Part/Modified-Discontinued In Part
- NAD carefully scrutinizes denigrating claims to ensure that they are truthful,
accurate, narrowly drawn and that they do not falsely disparage a competitors
product.
Basis of Inquiry: Nutrition and disparagement claims made in television, Internet, print and
mobile advertising by BLUE Buffalo Company, Ltd., manufacturer of BLUE Brand Pet Food
Products, were challenged by Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc., a competing manufacturer of pet food
products. The following claims formed the basis of NADs inquiry:
Express Claims:
It takes a lot to get me mad, but it really hit me when I realized that his big name dog
food had chicken by-product meal as a first ingredientnot real meat. It felt like they
fooled me, so I switched Leo to BLUE Buffalo.
If you are feeding one of the big-name brands, chances are youre in for a big let-down.
Pet parents are learning the truth about the ingredients in some of the leading dog food
brands. Dont be fooled by the big name dog food brands.
All cat parents want their little girls to love their food. But what if you dont love the
natural ingredients in them? Thats why cat lovers are turning to BLUE Buffalo, because
it has the natural ingredients you want, combined with the delicious taste she wants. And
real meat is always first.
I used to feed my little guy a big name brand that was formulated for a toy breeds
needs, but I didnt want him eating chicken by-product meal, so I switched to BLUE.
These big name cat food companies are out there telling people theyre made with the
best ingredients, when theyre notDont make me think Im feeding her something
high-quality when Im not.
When parents learn the truth about big name cat foods, they switch to BLUE Buffalo.
All BLUE Life Protection foods are made with the finest natural ingredients, with real
meat first.
Are big name cat foods fooling you? You probably didnt know that many well-known
cat foods contain things like chicken by-product meal and corn gluten. BLUE, on the
other hand, is made with the finest ingredients

Page: 2
True BLUE Test comparison chart between BLUE and Hills Science Diet dry dog and
cat foods which communicates the following:
All Hills Science Diet dry pet foods contain chicken by-product meal.
No Hills Science Diet dry pet foods include both fruits and vegetables.
No Hills Science Diet dry cat foods feature real meat (such as chicken or fish)
as the first ingredient.
Hills Science Diet products do not contain vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants
that support immune health, satisfy pets life-stage requirements, and foster a
healthy oxidative balance (either at all or to the same degree as the ingredients in
BLUE).
Implied Claims:
Competing pet food brands use low quality ingredients in their pet foods products.
Competing pet food brands use chicken by-product meal instead of real meat in their pet
food products.
Challengers Position:
I.
Express Claims: It takes a lot to get me mad, but it really hit me when I realized that his
big name dog food had chicken by-product meal as a first ingredient not real meat. It
felt like they fooled me, so I switched Leo to BLUE Buffalo; If you are feeding one of
the big-name brands, chances are youre in for a big let-down; Pet parents are learning
the truth about the ingredients in some of the leading dog food brands. Dont be fooled
by the big name dog food brands and related express and implied claims.
The challenger explained that challenged advertisements follow a similar formatthey feature
an actress portraying a pet owner, with her pet, who expresses her shock and disappointment
with big name pet foods because they contain chicken by-product meal, a discovery which
leads her to switch to BLUE. Consumers are then invited to compare their pets food to BLUE
pet food by taking the True BLUE Test, an online comparison tool that allows consumers to
choose one or more pet foods (including Hills Science Diet products) to compare against BLUE
dog and cat food based on five ingredient factors.1
The URLs to which consumers are directed are as follows: CompareBlue.com; CompareYourBrand.com;
CompareBlueCat.com; and TrueBlueTest.com. A prior version of the chart was worded differently but included the
same ingredient factors as well as another (LifeSource Bits [Cold-Formed Nutrients & Antioxidants]) which was
since been removed from the chart. While the challenger noted that the removal of LifeSource Bits from the

Page: 3
The challenger asserted that the challenged advertisements all convey the same falsely
disparaging and inflammatory messagethat big name pet food manufacturers (including
Hills) are actively try to conceal the fact that they include chicken by-product meal (instead of
real meat) as the first ingredient.2 The challenger argued that the advertiser is free to make
truthful monadic claims about its ingredients or draw properly-tailored distinctions between the
ingredients in BLUE and those in specific competing products. However, it cannot make
inaccurate, brand-wide comparisons implying that all (or almost all) products from every major
competitor (including Hills Science Diet) contain ingredients such as chicken by-product meal.
The challenger noted that the advertisers reference to focus group data, which it claims shows
that consumers feel deceived or betrayed, is irrelevant to support the challenged objective claims
regarding competitors deceptive practices. Even if it were relevant, the challenger maintained
that none of negative reactions refers to Science Diet so this evidence is inapplicable as to Hills.
The challenger also dismissed the advertisers contention that the challenged advertisements
simply communicate consumers surprise (as opposed to anger or deception) as to big-name
brands ingredients given that the latter message is clearly communicated in both voiceover
commentary and print statements.3
II.
cat foods.
The challenger explained that the True BLUE Test is an online comparison tool that allows
consumers to compare their dog or cats food brand (or other brands) to BLUE dog and cat food
based on five factors: 1) ALWAYS Has Real Meat as the First Ingredient; 2) ALWAYS Includes
Veggies and Fruit; 3) NEVER Has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meals; 4) NEVER Has
Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives; and 5) NEVER has Corn, Wheat or Soy. After
selecting a brand(s), consumers are taken to the test results where they can then click on a
mouse-print hyperlink at the bottom of the chart for more information.4 Upon clicking on the
hyperlink, the True BLUE Test Criteria pop-up window appears, explaining the criteria for
receiving a checkmark for a given category and the products in each brand against which BLUE
products are compared. Even if most of a brands products fall within the specified category, if
only one does not, a brand will not receive a checkmark.5 BLUE Buffalo receives bold
comparison chart was appropriate, it argued that references to them should be removed wherever they continue to
appear.
2
The challenger argued that even if the advertiser was claiming that Science Diet products might contain chicken
by-product meal, the claim would nonetheless be misleading because the advertiser cannot rely on the fact that
certain competitive products do contain chicken by-product meal to support the suggestion that consumers should be
wary of all Science Diet products for that reason. Citing Halo, Purely for Pets, Inc. (HALO Spots Stew), Report
#5423, NAD/CARU Case Reports (February 2012). Science Diet is among the products referenced in the True Blue
Test that consumers are invited to take at the end of the television commercial.
3
E.g., Are the big name dog foods fooling you? You probably didnt know that many well-known dog foods
contain things like chicken by-product meal; It takes a lot to get me mad, but it really hit me when I realized that
his big name dog food had chicken by-product meal as a first ingredientnot real meat.
4
For detailed comparison information, click here.
5
For example, for a dog or cat food brand to receive a checkmark in the Includes Veggies & Fruit category, all of
a brands products must contain both fruits and vegetables. The challenger maintained that only one competitive
brand received three checkmarks, with most brands receiving one or no checkmarks.

Page: 4
checkmarks under all five factors in every instance compared to competing brands which receive
no (or, at most, only a few) checkmarks, and the checkmarks they receive are noticeably smaller
in size and fainter in color than those accorded to BLUE. The challenger noted that the language
used in connection with the True BLUE Test makes clear that the checkmarks refer to the overall
quality of a pet food.6
The challenger argued that the terms always and never in connection with each of the
categories (e.g., ALWAYS Includes Veggies and Fruit) reasonably communicate the opposite
of the meaning of the headings if a competing brand does not receive a checkmarkfor
example, the absence of a checkmark for the ALWAYS Includes Veggies and Fruit factor
reasonably communicates that the brand never includes veggies and fruit in any of its products.
Similarly, the absence of a checkmark for NEVER has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meal
reasonably conveys that the brand always includes chicken (or poultry) by-product meal in all its
products. The challenger explained that since late 2012, it reformulated the vast majority of its
Science Diet dog and cat foods to align its formulas with consumer preferences and that in so
doing, it removed chicken by-product meal as an ingredient from these products (specifically
from 27 out of the 28 Science Diet canine dry products and from 15 out of 18 of the Science Diet
feline dry products). Further, 22 of the 28 Science Diet canine dry products and 14 of the 18
Science Diet feline dry products include real meat (either real chicken or fish) as their first
ingredient. Moreover, 36 out of the 46 dry dog and cat foods contain fruits and vegetables.
Accordingly, Hills argued that the aforementioned takeaways as they pertain to itself are
unsupported.7
The challenger also maintained that the True BLUE Test Criteria pop-up window is out-ofdate because it includes Hills Science Diet products which have been discontinued.8 The
challenger also argued that the disclosure, which explains each category and the products that
form the basis of comparison, does not comport with the FTCs guidelines for effective online
disclosures for the following reasons: 1) it is not clear and conspicuous because it appears in a
separate roll-over window with a generically-labeled hyperlink (Learn more) that does not
inform consumers of the importance of the windows contents; and 2) even if consumers consult
the roll-over window, the explanation of the charts basis of comparison is shown at the very
bottom of the long, text-heavy window which consumers are unlikely to read.9 The challenger
argued that even if the disclosure were clear and conspicuous, it impermissibly contradicts the
charts main message that Science Diet includes chicken by-product meal throughout its line of
products. In addition, the challenger asserted that the pop-up window includes falsely
disparaging claims referring to big name brands using lower quality ingredients like chicken
by-product meal as opposed to BLUE Buffalo which uses only the highest quality ingredients
6
E.g., Are you surprised by the results?...The goal of the True BLUE Test is to give you a better understanding of
what really makes up a healthy dog [or cat] food. And as the results show, the leading brands probably fall short of
what you should expect from your dogs [or cats] food.
7
The challenger also noted that the four Science Diet dry pet foods that include chicken by-product meal will be
reformulated or discontinued by the end of the first quarter of 2014.
8
The following Science Diet products have been discontinued: 1) Science Diet Advanced Protection Senior (dog
food); 2) Science Diet Adult Chicken & Rice Recipe (cat food); and 3) Science Diet Advanced Protection Senior 7+
(cat food).
9
The text in the mobile version is also shown in mice type rendering it unreadable.

Page: 5
in each and every one of our foods, starting with meat, poultry and fish. The advertiser referred
to a prior NAD case in which NAD determined that BLUE Buffalo cannot substantiate the
message that its products or ingredients are higher in quality or are better for pets than competing
pet foods.10
The challenger also argued that the advertisers use of faint checkmarks for competing brands
juxtaposed against the bold checkmarks it gives itself falsely implies that even if competitors
products have the same ingredients as BLUE pet food products, they offer less of those
ingredients or are otherwise inferior. The challenger asserted that the checkmarks should be
uniform for BLUE and competing brands.
Advertisers Position:
I.
by the big name dog food brands and related claims.
The advertiser argued that the results of its extensive market research reveal that many pet
owners prefer real meat as the first ingredient of their pet food and do not want their pets food to
contain any chicken or poultry by-product meals.11 The advertiser argued that its advertising
truthfully communicates the following: 1) consumers do not know as much about their pet food
ingredients as they should; 2) consumers should compare the ingredients in the pet food they are
currently using to those in BLUE pet food products; and 3) when they do compare the
10
Citing Blue Buffalo, LLC (BLUE Pet Food), Report #4892, NAD/CARU Case Reports (July 2008).
The advertiser referred to market research it commissioned, submitted to NAD on a confidential basis, which
reveals the following: 1) the biggest brands by market share also have the highest levels of consumer awareness; 2)
pet owners are willing to pay a premium for a product that included meat as the first ingredient and/or contained no
chicken by-product meals; 3) based solely on the review of unbranded ingredient lists, pet owners generally agree
that the better brand is one which uses the higher-quality ingredients used by Blue Buffalo and that they
overwhelmingly prefer that brand based solely on the ingredients (specifically, deboned chicken, chicken meal,
whole ground brown rice, whole ground barley and oatmeal). The report also indicated that most consumers believe
that the pet food they are currently using is superior to other pet food products and of these, most shop at pet
specialty stores. As for the focus group testing, it was conducted by RazorFocus over the span of 2011-13.
Participants were asked a series of questions about their pets, pet food and reasons for choosing the pet food. The
facilitator presented one participant with a bag of the big-name pet food brand that the participant had identified as
his/her current pet food and a bag of BLUE to a participant who identified BLUE as his/her current pet food. When
the participants were asked to read the ingredient panels aloud to the group, the participants were not only surprised
to learn that the ingredients in their big-name pet food of a lesser quality, but as the videos show, they expressed
shock, dismay and anger as well. The advertiser also noted that it offers coupons for BLUE products to pet owners
who take the True Blue Test and that there is a higher rate of redemption with its coupons than for non-BLUE users
which indicates that consumers prefer the ingredients in BLUE products over those in competing big-name pet food
products.
11

Page: 6
ingredients, they will be surprised by what they learn.12 The advertiser maintained that the
surprised and angry reactions of the actors constitute puffery and that no consumer would
reasonably expect BLUE Buffalo to substantiate how many consumers are surprised/angry when
they view any given ingredient list or the magnitude of that surprise/anger. The advertiser, noting
that it did not include Science Diet packaging in its commercials, rejected the challengers
contention that the commercials convey that Hills is fooling consumers. The advertiser
asserted that the challenger has failed to provide any consumer perception evidence
demonstrating that the challenged advertisements communicate that all (or nearly all) of Hills
Science Diet products contain chicken by-product meals.13
II.
cat foods.
The advertiser maintained that its True BLUE Test is an interactive and engaging product
comparison tool that allows users to compare BLUE to competing brands based on the
ingredients each uses in its entire product line. The advertiser explained that a brand will get a
checkmark in the specified column if and only if it meets the specified criterion across the entire
product line. Consumers can also find out which specific formulations from a particular brand
were evaluated. The advertiser asserted that it should be free to make the following truthful,
unqualified and undisputed claims (as reflected in its comparison chart) concerning the highquality and more expensive ingredients in its products: 1) that all BLUE pet foods include
chicken, fish or lamb as the first ingredient; 2) that all BLUE pet foods include fruits and
vegetables; 3) that no BLUE pet foods include chicken or poultry by-product meals; and 4) that
no BLUE pet foods include corn, wheat or soy proteins (glutens). The advertiser maintained that
it is also undisputed that none of the competing pet food brands can make any of these
unqualified claims about their products. As to the challengers Science Diet products, the
advertiser argued that the following is undisputed: 1) that some, but not all, contain real meat as
the first ingredient; 2) that some, but not all, contain vegetables and fruits; 3) that some contain
chicken by-product meals; and 4) some contain corn, wheat or soy. The advertiser noted that
while the challenger has reformulated, and continues to reformulate, its products to remove
chicken by-product meals, certain products in its Science Diet line currently contain chicken byproduct meals.
12
The advertiser referred to dog and cat food market share data from Euromonitor International which shows that
the dog food brands with greater than five percent U.S. market share for 2012 were as follows: 1) Iams; 2) Purina
Beneful; 3) Purina Dog Chow; 4) Pedigree; 5) Hills Science Diet; 6) Purina ONE; and 7) Kibbles n Bits.
Euromonitor Internationals report for cat food brands with greater than five percent U.S. market share for 2012
were as follows: 1) Purina Friskies; 2) Iams; 3) Meow Mix; 4) Purina Cat Chow; 5) Purina ONE; and 6) Hills
Science Diet.
13
The advertiser also argued that the challengers reliance on the Halo case is misplaced. See, infra, at note 2. The
advertiser explained that in that case, NAD determined that the implied claim centered on the notion that because
certain ingredients (e.g., chicken by-product meal) could legally contain 4D poultry, products which contain those
ingredients may also contain 4D poultry. The advertiser in that case offered no evidence that Science Diet contained
4D poultry. Here, the advertiser averred, it refers to chicken by-product meal because consumers prefer not to have
it as in ingredient in their pets food, and it is entitled to explain how BLUE products differ by excluding this
ingredient from all of its products.

Page: 7
Challengers Criticisms
1. Brand Comparisons
The advertiser maintained that the challengers criticism of the True BLUE Test as being
inherently inaccurate and deceptive because it compares brands as a whole rather than individual
products is unfounded. For example, the advertiser argued that it would be false and misleading
on its part to accord a checkmark to the challenger because only some of its products contain
chicken or poultry by-product meals given that a brand receives a checkmark for the NEVER
has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meals column only if none of its products contains
chicken or poultry by-product meals. The advertiser asserted that the absence of a checkmark
does not reasonably convey that all Science Diet products contain chicken or poultry by-product
meal. Similarly, the absence of a checkmark for other categories (e.g., ALWAYS Includes
Veggies and Fruits) does not reasonably convey that Science Diet products do not contain the
specified ingredients in any of their products.
The advertiser noted that while it disagrees with the challengers position, it has voluntarily
agreed to 1) further explain that each criterion is unqualified by adding text which is triggered
when a user rolls over the Learn More hyperlink directly adjacent to How does your brand
compare14; 2) replace the word high-quality for healthy in the sentence The goal of the
True BLUE Test is to give you a better understanding of what really makes up a healthy dog
14
Why Compare Brands?

Choosing the right food for your dog is an important decision, so it makes good sense to compare the
ingredients before selecting a brand.
At Blue Buffalo we consider our dogs to be family members so we use only the highest quality ingredients in
each and every one of our foods, starting with meat, fish or poultry as the first ingredient.
Other pet food, including some of the biggest name brands, dont feel the same the same way we do and use
lower quality ingredients like chicken by-product meal or ground corn. There are even well-known brands who
use higher quality ingredients in some of their foods and lower quality ingredients in others, without
making the difference clear to dog parentstalk about confusing!
The fact that this disparity in ingredient quality is often hidden or not addressed in packaging or advertising is
why we created the True BLUE Test. All dog foods are not created equal, and dog parents who are concerned
about ingredient quality deserve to know the truth.
So, in the True BLUE Test, always means always, and never means never. If a brand uses chicken byproduct meal in some of its products, but not in others, it doesnt get a check. If a brand uses meat first in some,
even most, of its foods, but not in all, it doesnt get a check. So, instead of having to research a brands many
choices to find out that you can feel good about feeding your furry friend, you know exactly what youre
getting with BLUE-always.

Page: 8
food; and 3) update the list of Science Diet products on the True BLUE Test Criteria to delete
discontinued products and add Hills newly introduced Science Diet formulations.
2. Complete List of Formulations For Each Brand is Located on a Separate Webpage

The advertiser maintained that the inclusion of this detailed information is not a disclosure
necessary to qualify or clarify the True BLUE Test but, instead, supplements the data in the True
BLUE Test.
3. Faintness of the Checkmarks for Competing Brands
The advertiser disputed the challengers contention that the fainter BLUE checkmarks given for
a competing brand (compared to the darker BLUE checkmarks for BLUE) suggest that certain
ingredients in the competing product are inferior to those found in BLUE. The advertiser
reiterated that each criterion in the True BLUE Test is a yes or no proposition and further
explained that the color of a checkmark is neither a measurement of the quantity or quality of a
certain ingredient nor a correlation with any superiority claim when viewing the advertisement as
a whole.
Decision:
I.
by the big name dog food brands and related claims.
It is undisputed that many consumers who have pets consider them to be family members and
want to provide them exceptional nutrition as close to what they themselves would eat.
Consequently, they will pay a premium for products that have real meat or fish as the first
ingredient as well as fruits, vegetables and other natural ingredients. They consider meat byproducts to be unsavory and, therefore, of questionable nutritional value. The advertisers BLUE
Buffalo line of products is designed with these consumers in mind by including real meat as the
first ingredient, as well as fruits and vegetables, in all of their products and excluding other
ingredients, such as fillers and meat by-products.
Advertisers are responsible for all reasonable interpretations of the messages conveyed by their
advertising, not simply the messages they intended to convey.15 While NAD has long
recognized an advertisers right to make literally truthful and accurate advertising claims,
sometimes at the expense of its competitors, NAD also carefully scrutinizes denigrating claims to
ensure that they are truthful, accurate, narrowly drawn and that they do not falsely disparage a
15
USPLabs, LLC (Jack3d Products), Report #5576, NAD/CARU Case Reports (April 2013).

Page: 9
competitors product.16 NAD has reviewed advertising claims similar to those at issue in this
challenge for both the advertisers and other premium pet food products and it has made clear in
its decisions in these cases that while companies can and should inform consumers about the
composition of their pet food products (e.g., meat as the first ingredient in all of their products),
they may not falsely disparage their competitors products by communicating unsupported
messages that these products are less healthy, safe or nutritionally inferior.17
This case includes television and print advertisements that follow a similar format. They feature
consumers holding their pets as they express shock and anger because they believe they were
fooled by big name dog and cat food companies when they discovered that their pet
products ingredients did not measure up to their expectations: It takes a lot to get me mad, but
it really hit me when I realized that his big name dog food had chicken by-product meal as a first
ingredient not real meat. It felt like they fooled me, so I switched Leo to BLUE Buffalo. The
voiceover then explains that [i]f you are feeding one of the big-name brands, chances are youre
in for a big let-down. Consumers are then invited to take the True BLUE Test on the BLUE
Buffalo website where they can compare various attributes of their brands pet food to those of
BLUE Buffalo. The print and broadcast advertisements show bold BLUE checkmarks for BLUE
for every category in the test versus faint or no checkmarks (or, in the print advertisements,
question marks) for a competing brand. The print and broadcast advertisements end with the
tagline Love them like family. Feed them like family.
NAD determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably convey the following messages:
1) that all major pet food companiesi.e., Hills and, at a minimum, all of the other companies
included in the True BLUE Testare misleading their customers a) by actively concealing the
truth about the ingredients in their products; and b) by positioning their products as being of high
quality when, in fact, they are not because they include lesser quality ingredients, such as
chicken by-product meals and corn gluten; and 2) that consumers should switch to BLUE
because it only has the highest quality ingredients in its line of products (e.g., real meat as the
first ingredient, as well as fruits and vegetables).
NAD was concerned about the accuracy of these implied messages for a number of reasons.
First, it is unclear which pet food manufacturers form the basis of the advertisers comparison
given the highly fragmented pet food marketplace. There are many companies who sell their
products exclusively in grocery stores or in big box retailers (e.g., Costco). There are other
companies, like BLUE and Hills, who sell their products exclusively in specialty stores (e.g.,
Petco, PetSmart). There are also companies who sell their products in both grocery/big box
stores and specialty stores. Further, there are companies who sell products through veterinary
channels. The companies in the True BLUE Test comparison are representative of the pet food
marketplace. It is also undisputed that Hills is among the big name pet food manufacturers to
which the advertiser refers in the challenged advertisements as both companies directly compete
with each other in the specialty store marketplace.
16
Unilever United States, Inc. (Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash), Report #5599, NAD/CARU Case Reports (June
2013).
17
Halo, Purely for Pets, Inc. (HALO Spots Stew), Report #5423, NAD/CARU Case Reports (February 2012).

Page: 10
Second, the advertiser has not provided any evidence that big name pet food manufacturers
(or, at the very least, the companies listed in the True BLUE Test which includes Hills) are
actively concealing the truth about the ingredients in their products. NAD determined that the
advertisers focus group research does not constitute reliable evidence that the competing pet
food manufacturers are misleading their customers about the nutritional profile of their products.
NAD has noted that while focus groups can provide information that is valuable to advertisers in
evaluating public responses to advertising campaigns, they are not sufficiently reliable to support
advertising claims.18 In this case, the focus group research is of very limited value because the
participants were not asked to view any advertising at all. Rather, the participants were asked
which product(s) they feed their pets and why. One participant who is a BLUE customer was
asked to read the ingredients in a BLUE product and a participant who purchased a competing
product read the ingredients in that product.19 The participants who purchased products other
than BLUE were upset and surprised by the differences in the products ingredients, specifically
the inclusion of chicken by-product meal and fillers, such as corn gluten, in their products.
While this focus group research may have been the impetus for the advertiser to encourage
consumers to compare the ingredients in their products versus those in BLUE, it is not sufficient
to support the implied message that competing pet food companies are deliberately concealing
the truth about their ingredients from their customers.20
Third, while real meat is undisputedly a high quality ingredient and nutritious, the advertiser has
not provided any evidence that meat by-product meal is not a high quality ingredient or that it is
not nutritious, or that products which include meat by-product meal are less nutritious than
BLUEs or similarly positioned products that do not. In fact, NAD has noted in prior decisions
involving advertising for pet foods that chicken by-product meals are nutritious.21 In addition,
many of these big name companies, including Hills, have many different product lines. Some
(such as Hills Science Diet) include meat as the first ingredient in almost all of their products.
Moreover, some dogs and cats have allergies or sensitive stomachs which preclude eating foods
which include meat, and no allowance is made for products designed for pets with dietary
restrictions in any of the challenged advertisements.
For all of these reasons, NAD recommended that the advertiser modify the challenged
advertisements to avoid any express or implied references to competing manufacturers fooling
or otherwise misleading consumers because their products include chicken or other meat by18
Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Advertising for Health Care Facility), Report #3555, NAD/CARU Case
Reports (June 1999).
19
The competing brands that were the basis of the focus group research were as follows: Beneful, Iams, Fancy
Feast, and Friskies.
20
In addition, the advertisers reference to its competitors advertising as evidence that they overstate the nutritional
value of their products ingredients is not germane to this challenge. The advertiser is free to bring a challenge
against Hills or any other big name pet food manufacturer if it believes that its advertising claims are misleading.
As to the advertisers reference the higher rate of redemption with its coupons than for non-BLUE users as being
indicative of consumers preference of the ingredients in BLUE products over those in competing big-name pet
food, NAD determined that there is no evidence as to the reason for the higher rate of redemption, although it noted
that it could also be for financial reasons given that BLUE is a premium product.
21
Halo, Purely For Pets, Inc. (Halo Spots Stew), Report #5423, NAD/CARU Case Reports (December 2012)
(noting that certain by-products are permitted by applicable guidelines in foods suitable, nutritious and safe for pets).

Page: 11
product meals or other ingredients they believe to be less nutritious. However, the advertiser is
free to promote the high quality ingredients in its products and to encourage consumers to check
the ingredient labels of their pets food products to ensure that they make better informed
purchasing decisions when buying food for their pets.
II.
cat foods.
The True BLUE Test comparison chart is shown in a fleeting manner in the commercials after
consumers are directed to compare the ingredients in their current dog or cat food to those in
BLUE. The bold checkmarks for BLUE in each column are prominently shown. The print
advertisement includes an older version of the comparison chart but also features checkmarks for
BLUE for each category and question marks for each category as they relate to your cats [or
dogs] food. BLUEs homepage includes a prominent cue inviting consumers to use the
comparison chart Compare Your Brand: Take the True BLUE Test to see if the ingredients in
your pets food are as wholesome as you think.22 Consumers can choose one or more brands to
compare (each of the featured brands) against BLUE. The headline on the comparison page
states How does your brand compare? with a hyperlink (Learn More) appearing next to it.
Below this headline are the five current bases of comparison: 1) ALWAYS has real meat as the
first ingredient; 2) ALWAYS includes veggies and fruits; 3) NEVER has chicken (or poultry)
by-product meals; 4) NEVER has artificial colors, flavors or preservatives; and 5) NEVER has
corn, wheat or soy. Above the list of the brand is the following reference Roll over or touch to
expand with an arrow pointing to the Learn More hyperlink shown below each basis of
comparison.
NAD was concerned about the accuracy of the messages conveyed by the advertisers ingredient
comparison chart. While it is clear that the basis of comparison is on a brand-wide basis, and the
advertiser explains what it means by the references to always and never, the individual
attributes are positioned as being present or absent in an absolute manner (always has real meat
as the first ingredient; never has chicken [or poultry] by-product meals). As such, the absence of
a checkmark in a given column for a competing brand reasonably conveys the inaccurate
message that 1) that all of the products in the listed brand have undesirable ingredients (e.g.,
chicken by-product meal, corn gluten, artificial colors, flavors or preservatives); and 2) that none
of products for the listed brand have certain other nutritious ingredients (meat as the first
ingredient; veggies and fruit). The advertiser submitted nutritional information for dry dog and
cat food products pertaining to certain competing brands, as well as for its own products. There
are wide disparities in the nutritional profiles based on the given brand. For example, with
respect to the question of meat as the first ingredient, some brands have no products that contain
meat as the first ingredient but others have meat in 50 percent and, in some instances, over 90
percent of their products.23 Similarly, a brand which does not receive a checkmark for the
22
There is one hyperlink to compare your dog food and another below it to compare your cat food.
For example, none of the nine Pedigree dog products has meat as the first ingredient whereas 17 out of the 34
Iams products do. As for the Hills Science Diet dry dog food products, 78.5 percent of its dog products currently
have meat as the first ingredient. For cat products, none of the seven Meow Mix products has meat as the first
23

Page: 12
category ALWAYS includes veggies and fruits may well have veggies and/or fruits in 99
percent of its products.24 Consumers have no way of differentiating between a brand which does
not have meat as the first ingredient in any of its products from a brand which has meat as the
first ingredient in the vast majority of its products based on the comparison chart as it is currently
constituted.
Another concern raised by the comparison chart is the manner in which the disclosures for each
of the categories appear both online and in a mobile device. The FTCs revised .Com
Disclosures make clear that [d]isclosures that are an integral part of a claim or inseparable from
it should not be communicated through a hyperlink but that those that are lengthy can be
included in a hyperlink provided [t]he hyperlinkis clearly labeled to communicate the specific
nature of the information to which it leads.25 The FTC added that [t]he text prompt should be
tied to the disclosure to which it refers. General or vague statements, such as details below,
provide no indication about the subject matter or importance of the information that consumers
will find and are not adequate cues.26
Here, the hyperlinks, shown next to the heading How does your brand compare? and directly
underneath each category, are labeled learn more which are as vague as the details below
hyperlink to which FTC cites as inadequate in its .Com Disclosures.27 The bigger issue,
however, is that the Learn more hyperlink does not operate as a hyperlink at all. Rather, the
information in each hyperlink appears as a pop-up upon moving the mouse over the learn more
hyperlink next to the How does your brand compare? heading or over each category. The
disclosures can be read and understood in a clear and conspicuous manner in their entirety if one
hovers over each category very slowly. However, if one hovers over all of the categories, or
goes from one category to the next too quickly, the disclosures pop up in rapid succession
making it very hard to read and understand each one. The .Com Disclosures advise against the
use of pop-up disclosures because, among other things, consumers may not read information in
pop-up windows or interstitials because they immediately close the pop-ups or move to the next
page in pursuit of completing their intended tasks, or because they dont associate information in
a pop-up window or on an interstitial page to a claim or product they havent encountered yet.28
ingredient whereas 10 out of the 11 products in Purina Ones products do. As for Hills Science Diet dry cat food
products, 77.7 percent of them have meat as the first ingredient.
24
For example, while none of the Pedigree dry dog products contains fruit, eight out of the nine products contain
vegetables.
25
.Com Disclosures, http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-onlineadvertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf, at 9-11. The FTC explains that [t]he key
considerations for evaluating the effectiveness of all hyperlinks are: the labeling or description of the hyperlink;
consistency in the use of hyperlink styles; the placement and prominence of the hyperlink on the webpage or screen;
and the handling of the disclosure on the click-through page or screen.)
26
Id. at 9.
Id. See also Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Chase Freedom Rewards Credit Card), Report #5679, NAD/CARU Case
Reports (January 2014) (recommending that in space-constrained advertisements in which the advertiser uses
hyperlinks to disclose material terms, the advertiser should modify the hyperlink [which currently reads learn
more] to indicate the nature of the disclosures to which it is linking).
28
.Com Disclosures, at 14.
27

Page: 13
A different disclosure issue arises when one accesses the True BLUE Test on a mobile device.
The hyperlink works as it should next to the text Compare your brand to BLUE and sign up to
receive a $5 coupon. However, when one clicks on a brand to compare it to BLUE, the same
categories appear on the left next to which is a + sign. The + sign may not alert consumers
to the need to click on the + or the nature of the disclosure as pursuant to the .Com
Disclosures.29 However, NAD noted that once a consumer clicks on the + sign or the Learn
More hyperlink, the disclosures are clear, conspicuous and easy to read without the need to
scroll down to read them.30
Another concern raised by the comparison chart is the manner in which checkmarks for
competing brands appear. Both online and on a mobile device, the checkmark for a competing
brand is noticeably smaller and fainter than the checkmark accorded to BLUE for the same
attribute. NAD addressed this issue in the Iams Brand Pet Food Products case.31 In that case, the
advertiser used a comparison chart to compare certain attributes of its pet food products against
those of competing pet food manufacturers. NAD determined that the advertisers use of a faint
checkmark for the challengers products, as compared to the bold checkmarks for the Iams
products for the same attribute, reasonably conveyed the message that Iams is nutritionally
superior and that for those ingredients which are contained in competing products, the competing
products have have less of the ingredient.32 The same holds true here. Consumers who view the
chart could reasonably take away the message that the competing product receiving a smaller or
fainter checkmark in a certain category is nutritionally inferiorfor example, for the columns
ALWAYS has real meat as the first ingredient and ALWAYS includes veggies and fruits,
the fainter checkmark reasonably conveys that the competing brand has less real meat as the first
ingredient or fewer veggies and fruits than BLUE products. For the categories NEVER has
chicken (or poultry) by-product meals, NEVER has artificial colors, flavors or preservatives
and NEVER has corn, wheat or soy, the faint checkmark is potentially very confusing and
contradictory as it reasonably communicates that the competing brands products may contain
some of the ingredients that the category conveys is absent.
As for the reference to LifeSource Bits, NAD deemed its removal from the comparison chart
to be necessary and appropriate given that only BLUE could receive a checkmark since
LifeSource Bits (albeit not the antioxidants and other nutrients contained in it) are unique to
BLUE. The advertiser refers to the inclusion of LifeSource Bits in its product below the chart as
follows: Only BLUE Has LifeSource Bits, Now Enhanced with Super 7 Antioxidants.
LifeSource Bits contain a precise blend of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants selected by
holistic veterinarians and animal nutritionists. And now all BLUE Life Protection Formula dog
foods feature LifeSource Bits that have been enhanced with our Super 7 package of powerful
29
Id. at 12 (A symbol or icon might not provide sufficient clues about why a claim is qualified or the nature of the
disclosure. It is possible that consumers may view a symbol as just another graphic on the page.); Id at A-22
(Example 19, illustrating a website that is optimized for mobile devices and how the information about the
advertised service plan requirement and the hyperlink to the plans prices are immediately adjacent to the camera
price they qualify).
30
The disclosure pertaining to the Learn More hyperlink now appears on a separate full screen, not on a smaller
screen with the brands as the backdrop.
31
P&G Pet Care (Iams Brand Pet Food Products), Report #5045, NAD/CARU Case Reports (July 2009).
32
Id.

Page: 14
antioxidant-rich ingredients, and lists the ingredients and the benefits they confer.33 In this
context, NAD determined that the claims reasonably communicate that BLUE has a special
blend of ingredients and explain the benefits conferred by the ingredients without conveying the
inaccurate message that competing brands do not contain similar ingredients or confer similar
benefits.34
Based on the foregoing, NAD recommended that the advertiser modify its comparison chart in
the following manner: 1) specify the number of products which include or do not include certain
ingredients (e.g., 17 out of the 34 Iams products have meat as the first ingredient) to ensure that
the comparisons are truthful and accurate; 2) regularly monitor product offerings of competing
brands to ensure that the basis of comparison is accurate; 3) modify its online disclosures by a)
eliminating the rollover format of the disclosures in favor of hyperlinks provided the hyperlinks
are modified to indicate the subject matter or importance of the information pursuant to the FTCs
.Com Disclosures; or b) ensuring that the rollover disclosures do not appear in rapid succession
such that they are difficult to read and understand; 4) modify its mobile disclosure by including
text (instead of the + sign) to indicate the nature of the disclosure pursuant to the FTCs .Com
Disclosures; and 5) ensure that the checkmarks appear in a uniform manner.
Conclusion:
NAD recommended that the advertiser modify its advertisements to avoid any express or implied
references to competing manufacturers fooling or otherwise misleading consumers because
their products include meat by-products based on the absence of evidence that meat by-products
are inherently less nutritious or that products that include them are of lower nutritional quality
than BLUE. However, the advertiser is free to promote the high quality ingredients in its
products and to encourage consumers to check the ingredient labels of their pets food products
to ensure that they make better informed purchasing decisions when buying food for their pets.
As for the comparison chart, NAD recommended that the advertiser modify its comparison chart
in the following manner: 1) specify the number of products which include or do not include
certain ingredients (e.g., 17 out of the 34 Iams products have meat as the first ingredient) to
ensure that the comparisons are truthful and accurate; 2) regularly monitor product offerings of
competing brands to ensure that the basis of comparison is accurate; 3) modify its online
disclosures by a) eliminating the rollover format of the disclosures in favor of hyperlinks
provided the hyperlinks are modified to indicate the subject matter or importance of the
information pursuant to the FTCs .Com Disclosures; or b) ensuring that the rollover disclosures do
not appear in rapid succession such that they are difficult to read and understand; 4) modify its
33
The ingredients are apples, blackberries, blueberries, cranberries, pomegranate, pumpkin, and spinach and the
advertiser states that these ingredients help support immune system health, life stage requirements, and healthy
oxidative balance. The television commercial refers to the LifeSource Bits as follows. Only Blue has LifeSource
Bits, a precise blend of antioxidants and nutrients.
34
See, e.g., Abbott Nutrition (Similac Advance and Similac Sensitive), Report #5369, NAD/CARU Case Reports
(September 2011) (appreciating the advertisers voluntary decision to discontinue using the claim Only Similac has
EarlyShield in conjunction with references to specific product benefits [as opposed to ingredients]).

Page: 15
mobile disclosure by including text (instead of the + sign) to indicate the nature of the
disclosure pursuant to the FTCs .Com Disclosures; and 5) ensure that the checkmarks appear in
a uniform manner.
Advertisers Statement:
Blue Buffalo is pleased with NADs determination that it is free to promote the high quality of
its ingredients, and to encourage consumers to check the ingredient labels of their current foods,
thereby prompting consumers to make better-informed purchasing decisions. Blue Buffalo is
further pleased that NAD found its promotion of its exclusive LifeSource Bits reasonably
conveys that BLUE contains a special blend of nutritious, high-quality ingredients, and that such
promotion in no way disparages Blue Buffalos competitors.
Blue Buffalo respectfully disagrees with the remainder of NADs finding. In particular, Blue
Buffalo maintains that none of its ads suggest to reasonable consumers that competing brands are
actively trying to conceal their ingredients, including chicken or poultry by-product meals, from
consumers.
Blue Buffalo is particularly disappointed with NADs recommendations regarding its longstanding True Blue Test. Blue Buffalo believes it has the right to compare its BLUE line of pet
foods to other brands, and to truthfully communicate to consumers which lines do or do not
contain certain ingredients across the entire product line. Blue Buffalo rejects the notion that the
True Blue Test can only truthfully compare brands by using a format that states exactly how
many formulations a given brand sells and how many of those formulations do or do not have the
relevant characteristic. Blue Buffalo also rejects NADs assertion that consumers will not
understand the meaning of basic terms such as NEVER and ALWAYS in the context of the
True Blue Test. For example, no reasonable consumer will understand the absence of a
checkmark in the column titled NEVER Has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meals to mean
that the brand uses that ingredient in every one of its formulations.
Blue Buffalo steadfastly maintains that reasonable consumers understand the plain meaning of
the language used in the True Blue Test, that the record contains no evidence to the contrary, and
that no revisions are necessary. Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation with the self-regulatory
process, Blue Buffalo agrees to (i) make checkmarks in True Blue Test appear more uniform, (ii)
regularly monitor competitors products to insure that the basis of the comparison is up to date
(which the company would do anyway), and (iii) although it denies that any portion of its
website fails to conform with the FTCs .Com Disclosures, make changes to the way explanatory
language appears on its websites, including the mobile-optimized versions of its sites. Blue
Buffalo will appeal the remainder of the NADs decision to the NARB. (#5696 AMU, closed
03/11/2014)
2014. Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
EXHIBIT C
NARB PANEL #195

Appeal of the NAD Final Decision Regarding Advertising for
Blue Buffalo Company, LLC BLUE Brand Pet Food Products
Panel Members
Thomas Kinnear (Chair)
D. Maynard Phelps Collegiate Professor of Business Administration Professor of
Marketing
University of Michigan
David Dobbins
Global Director Media, Sourcing
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Linda SanGiacomo
Senior Director of Advertising
Dunkin Donuts, Inc.
Howard Courtemanche
Executive Vice President
JWT
Representing the National Advertising Review Board
Alan Cohen, Of Counsel
Sarah Agler, Coordinator
Representing the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council
Lee Peeler, President
Representing the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
Richard Woods, Vice President & General Counsel
Representing National Advertising Division
Andrea Levine, Director
Jennifer Fried, Assistant Director
Annie Ugurlayan, Senior Staff Attorney
Representing Blue Buffalo Company, LLC
William W. Bishop, Chairman
Richard MacLean, General Counsel
Lydia Parnes, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Nathan E. Ferguson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Representing Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.
Lee Marshall Holtry, Chief Marketing Counsel
Ross M. Weisman, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Raymond C. Woodring, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
REPORT OF NARB PANEL 195

July 9, 2014
Appeal of NAD Final Decision
Regarding Claims by Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.
For BLUE Brand Pet Food
Background
Advertising claims made by Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. (Blue Buffalo) for its BLUE
brand pet food products were challenged by Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc. (Hills), a competing
manufacturer of pet food products.
The challenged claims were made in television, website, print and mobile advertising. The
challenged claims included:
Are big name cat foods fooling you? You probably didnt know that many wellknown cat foods contain things like chicken by-product meal and corn gluten.
BLUE, on the other hand, is made with the finest ingredients .
It takes a lot to get me mad, but it really hit me when I realized that his big name
dog food had chicken by-product meal as a first ingredient not real meat. It felt like
they fooled me, so I switched Leo to BLUE Buffalo.
If youre feeding one of the big-name brands, chances are youre in for a big letdown.
Pet parents are learning the truth about the ingredients in some of the leading dog
food brands. Dont be fooled by the big name dog food brands.
I used to feed my little guy a big name brand , but I didnt want him eating
chicken by-product meal, so I switched to BLUE.
These big name cat food companies are out there telling people theyre made with
the best ingredients, when theyre not . Dont make me think Im feeding her
something high-quality when Im not.
When pet parents learn the truth about big name cat foods, they switch to BLUE
Buffalo.
The challenged claims also included a True BLUE Test chart that compared pet food
brands and gave checkmarks for those brands that:
Always have real meat as the first ingredient

Always include veggies and fruit
Never have chicken/poultry by-product meal
Never have artificial colors, flavors or preservatives
Never have corn, wheat or soy
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the challenged advertisements
reasonably conveyed the message that major pet food companies, including Hills, are
2
misleading their customers by (a) actively concealing the truth about the ingredients in their
products and (b) representing their products as being of high quality when they are not
because they include lesser quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meals and corn
gluten. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the challenged advertisements to
avoid any express or implied references to competing manufacturers misleading consumers
because their products include chicken/meat by-product meal or other ingredients
represented by Blue Buffalo to be less nutritious. Blue Buffalo has appealed this
recommendation.
The NAD also found that the True BLUE Test comparison chart reasonably conveyed
the inaccurate message that the absence of checkmarks for a manufacturer meant that all of
that manufacturers pet food products had specified undesirable ingredients (if there was
no checkmark under one of the Never has columns) and none of that manufacturers
pet food products had specified desirable ingredients (if there was no checkmark under
one of the Always has columns). The NAD additionally found that the smaller and
fainter checkmarks for competing brands reasonably conveyed the inaccurate message that
those brands met the specified standard to a lesser degree than the Blue Buffalo product,
which had a larger and bolder check. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the
True BLUE Test comparison chart by (a) specifying the number of products which
include or do not include certain ingredients, (b) regularly monitoring product offerings of
competing brands to ensure accuracy; (c) modifying the format of its online disclosures, (d)
modifying its mobile disclosures, and (e) ensuring that checkmarks appear in a uniform
manner. Blue Buffalo agreed to regularly monitor product offerings of competing brands,
modify its mobile disclosures, and ensure that checkmarks on its True BLUE Test chart
appear more uniform; it appealed the remainder of the NADs recommendations.
Findings and Conclusions
It is well-established that an advertiser has the burden of providing a reasonable basis to
support all messages reasonably conveyed by advertising, including messages that may not
have been intended by the advertiser. It is also well-established that, in the absence of
consumer perception evidence, a NARB panel may place itself in the shoes of consumers
and determine what messages are reasonably conveyed by challenged advertising.
Claim that other pet food manufacturers are misleading consumers
The challenged advertisements include numerous references to other pet food companies
fooling or misleading consumers with respect to pet food ingredients. Several advertisements
include pet owners who express anger upon learning that the pet foods they use contain
ingredients such as chicken by-product meal, and some advertisements indicate that these
ingredients are not high quality or fit for consumption by their pets.1 The advertisements
1
In one challenged advertisement, the pet owner says that she felt like I didnt want to put [her cats] bowl
down anymore upon learning that the big name pet food she used had chicken by-product meal as the first
ingredient. In another advertisement, a pet owner indicates that her big name cat food is not high-quality.
The online explanation of the True BLUE Test includes the following: Other pet foods, including some of
the biggest name brands, use lower quality ingredients like chicken by-product meal or ground corn.
repeatedly suggest that consumers switch to Blue Buffalo when they learn the truth about
big name pet products, including the fact that they contain chicken by-product meal.
The panel agrees with the NAD that the challenged advertisements reasonably convey a
message that all or most major pet food companies, including Hills, are misleading their
customers by (a) concealing the truth about ingredients in their products, and (b)
representing their products are high quality when they are not because they include lesser
quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meal and corn gluten. The panel also agrees
with the NAD that Blue Buffalo has not provided a reasonable basis in support of this
message; the record does not show that (a) major pet food companies are misleading their
customers with respect to product ingredients or (b) chicken/meat by-product meal and
corn gluten are not high quality and/or nutritious pet food ingredients.
True BLUE Test
The challenged advertisements encourage pet owners to visit the Blue Buffalo website to
take the True BLUE Test comparing Blue Buffalo products to other pet food brands.2
Separate charts are provided for dog and cat food. The most recent version of the True
BLUE Test in the NAD record had either checkmarks or blank spaces for the Blue Buffalo
brand and competing brands in the following categories:
ALWAYS Has Real Meat as the First Ingredient

ALWAYS Includes Veggies and Fruit
NEVER Has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meals
NEVER Has Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives
NEVER Has Corn, Wheat or Soy
Checks in the True BLUE Test were awarded or withheld based on a pet food companys
entire line, and the record showed numerous examples where a competing pet food
company did not receive a check for ALWAYS has Real Meat as the First Ingredient or
ALWAYS Includes Veggies and Fruit even though a significant majority of its products
had real meat as the first ingredient and included veggies and fruit.3 The record also showed
numerous examples where a competing pet food company did not receive a check for the
While some language in the challenged advertisements indicates that the purpose of the True BLUE Test is
to compare brands, other language suggests that consumers can use the True BLUE Test to determine what
is in their current dog/cat food. For example, consumers are told they can use the True BLUE Test to
compare your cats food to BLUE, see if the ingredients in your pets food are as wholesome as you think,
and [l]earn the truth about the ingredients in your pets food. Despite the suggestion that consumers can use
the True BLUE Test to determine what is in their current dog/cat food, the test only permits a brand-tobrand comparison and does not permit consumers to determine the ingredients for the specific competitor
dog/cat food they are using.
3
For example, Hills did not receive a checkmark for ALWAYS Includes Veggies and Fruit despite the fact
that approximately 80% of its product line contained both fruit and vegetables.
NEVER has categories (e.g., NEVER has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meals)
even though a significant majority of its products did not contain the listed ingredient.4
No consumer perception evidence was presented in this case, and thus the panel placed itself
in the shoes of consumers to determine the messages reasonably conveyed by the True
BLUE Test comparison chart when a pet food company does not receive a check for either
positive (ALWAYS has ) or negative (NEVER has ) attributes. Blue Buffalo argued
that reasonable consumers would understand that the absence of a check in the ALWAYS
has . column means that the positive attribute may be present in some but not all of the
companys pet food products. However, the panel agrees with the NAD that a significant
number of reasonable consumers will interpret the absence of a check in the ALWAYS has
column to mean that none of the companys pet food products have the specified
positive attribute. The panel also agrees with the NAD that a significant number of
reasonable consumers will interpret the absence of a check in the NEVER has column
to mean that all of the companys pet foods have the specified ingredient.
Blue Buffalo argued that it fully explained the all or nothing nature of the test results in an
interactive rollover that is accessed when consumers place their cursor on a Learn More
link at the top of the True BLUE Test chart. The panel does not believe that a rollover or
hyperlink is sufficient to explain the nature of the comparisons being made, since it is likely
that many consumers will view the comparison chart without placing their cursor on
interactive rollovers or hyperlinks and thus will not have the benefit of that explanation. In
addition, the all or nothing explanation in a rollover or hyperlink would contradict one of
the messages reasonably conveyed by the face of the chart and would thus not be acceptable.
The panel agrees with the NAD that Blue Buffalo is free to promote the high quality
ingredients in its products and encourage consumers to check the ingredient labels of their
pets food to ensure that they make better informed purchasing decisions. The NAD
recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the True BLUE Test comparison chart to specify
the number of products which include or do not include certain ingredients (e.g., 17 out of
34 products have meat as the first ingredient); while the panel believes this is an acceptable
modification, the panel believes that in the alternative it would be acceptable if Blue Buffalo
modified the comparative chart to either (a) clearly communicate the percentage of products
which include or do not include specified ingredients (e.g., 50% of the products have meat as
the first ingredient) or (b) use other methods that clearly communicates the degree to which
a pet food companys products include or do not include specified ingredients.
Decision
The panel recommends that Blue Buffalo modify its advertisements to avoid any express or
implied messages that competing pet food companies are fooling or otherwise misleading
consumers by (a) concealing the truth about the ingredients in their products and/or (b)
4
For example, Hills did not receive a check mark for NEVER Has Chicken (or Poultry) By-Product Meal
at the time the NAD record closed. At that time, over 90% of Hills product line did not contain chicken (or
other poultry) by-product meal.
representing their products as being of high quality when they are not because they include
lesser quality ingredients such as chicken/meat by-product meals and corn gluten. However,
Blue Buffalo is free to promote the high quality ingredients in its own products and to
encourage consumers to check the ingredient labels of their pets food to ensure that they
make better informed purchasing decisions.
The panel also recommends that Blue Buffalo modify its True BLUE Test comparison
chart to (a) clearly communicate the total number of each brands products and the number
of those products that include or do not include specified ingredients (e.g., 17 out of 34
products have meat as the first ingredient), (b) clearly communicate the percentage of each
brands products which include or do not include specified ingredients (e.g., 50% of the
products have meat as the first ingredient) or (c) use other methods that clearly
communicate the degree to which each brands products include or do not include specified
ingredients. In addition, the panel recommends that any advertising referring consumers to
the True BLUE Test be modified to (a) make it clear that the True BLUE Test
compares brands and (b) avoid stating or implying that the True BLUE Test will enable
consumers to compare specific pet food products.
The panel thanks Blue Buffalo and Hills for their commitment to and participation in the
advertising industrys self-regulatory efforts to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of
advertising claims.
Advertisers Statement
With all due respect to the NARB and the efforts and time of the NARB panel devoted to
this matter, Blue Buffalo disagrees with the conclusions of the NARB.
Blue Buffalos communication philosophy is based on our belief that consumers have the
right to compare the ingredients in pet foods and decide for themselves which brand to feed
their dog or cat. As the NARB panels decision notes, Blue Buffalo is free to promote the
high quality ingredients in its own products and to encourage consumers to check the
ingredient labels of their pets food to ensure that they make better informed purchasing
decisions. We firmly believe that the challenged advertisements did just that, in an accurate
and fair manner, and that consumers have benefitted from our bringing transparency to the
pet food buying process.
Nevertheless, while we are not in complete agreement with this decision, we recognize that
we voluntarily committed to participate in the self-regulatory process of the NAD and the
NARB. Out of respect for that process, in our future advertisements we will strive to abide
by this NARB decision, as well as the guidance of other NAD decisions, such as Conagra
Foods, Inc. (Hebrew National Beef Franks), NAD Case No. 4581 (October 2006) and
Priceline.com, Inc. (Name Your Own Price), NAD Case No. 5437 (March 2012).
We will incorporate changes to our ads and web site that are consistent with the NARB
recommendations, with all due diligence.
EXHIBIT D
Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104-4 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 2 of 4 PageID

#: 2465
Eurofins Scientific Inc.
Nutrition Analysis Center
2200 Rittenhouse Street, Suite 150
Des Moines, IA 50321
Tel. +1 515 265 1461
Fax. +1 515 266 5453
Eurofins Sample Code: 464-2014-07140559

Sample Description: Cat Food - Bits
Client Sample Code: B32 0402
PO Number: P98T20140114-01
Client Code: QD0005998
Entry Date: 07/14/2014

Reporting Date: 07/21/2014
Mayer Brown LLP

Attn: Richard M. Assmus
Chicago, IL 60606
Mayer Brown LLP

attn: Richard M. Assmus
Chicago, IL 60606
Sample Reference: Blue Healthy Living
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
AR-14-QD-097763-01
Test
Result
QQ135 - Taurine (AOAC, Most Matrices)

AOAC 982.30 mod.
Taurine
0.01 %
QQ184 - Total Lysine (AOAC, Most Matrices)
AOAC 975.44 mod.
Lysine (Total)
1.19 %
QQ021 - Beta Carotene - AOAC mod.
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
540 IU/100 g
QQ182 - Total Vitamin A
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
540 IU/100 g
* Retinol
1,460 IU/100 g
* Total Vitamin A
2,000 IU/100 g
QQ022 - Biotin (Methods of Vitamin Assay, <7.5 mg/100g)
Met. of Vitamin Assay,Interscience Publ.,Ch.12
* Biotin
0.0654 mg/100 g
QQ059 - Total Folate (AOAC, levels < 12.5 mg/100g)
AOAC 992.05 mod.
* Folic Acid, Total
0.114 mg/100 g
QQ085 - Niacin - Levels<100 mg/100g (AOAC food/feed)
AOAC 944.13
* Niacin
6.93 mg/100 g
QQ149 - Vitamin B1-Thiamine HCl (AOAC mod., Most Matrices)
AOAC 942.23 mod.
* Vitamin B1 - Thiamine Hydrochloride
1.13 mg/100 g
QQ151 - Vitamin B12 - (AOAC, levels < 5 mg/100g)
AOAC 952.20 / 45.2.02
Vitamin B12
4.09 g/100 g
QQ154 - Vitamin B2 - Riboflavin (AOAC, levels < 25 mg/100g)
AOAC 970.65 mod.
* Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)
0.704 mg/100 g
QQ156 - Vitamin B5 - Pantothenic Acid (AOAC mod., food, < 75 mg/100g)
AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
Completed: 07/16/2014
All work done in accordance with Eurofins General Terms and Conditions of Sale (USA);
full text on reverse or www.eurofinsus.com/Terms_and_Conditions.pdf
Page 1 of 3
Certificate of Analysis: AR-14-QD-097763-01

#: 2466
AR-14-QD-097763-01
Test
Result

AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
* Pantothenic acid
2.51 mg/100 g
QQ160 - Vitamin C - Ascorbic Acid - AOAC
AOAC 967.22 mod.
* Vitamin C - Ascorbic Acid
1.98 mg/100 g
QD744 - Vitamin D- Separation of D2 & D3
EN 12821:2009
* Vitamin D2
<25.0 IU/100 g
* Vitamin D3
223 IU/100 g
QQ188 - Vitamin E-Tocopherol Profile (AOAC, Most Matrices)
AOAC 971.30 with HPLC quantification mod.
* Alpha-Tocopherol
8.03 mg/100 g
* Beta-Tocopherol
0.260 mg/100 g
* Gamma-Tocopherol
9.38 mg/100 g
* Delta-Tocopherol
6.67 mg/100 g
* Total Vitamin E (Tocopherols)
24.3 mg/100 g
QD089 - Fatty Acids-Omega 6 & 3 %W/W
AOCS Ce 2-66 AOCS Ce 1-62
Fatty Acid Profile, % Weight
Reported as Fatty Acids
C08:0 Octanoic (Caprylic)
<0.01 %
C10:0 Decanoic (Capric)
<0.01 %
C11:0 Undecanoic (Hendecanoic)
<0.01 %
C12:0 Dodecanoic (Lauric)
0.01 %
C14:0 Tetradecanoic (Myristic)
0.11 %
C14:1 Tetradecenoic (Myristoleic)
0.02 %
C15:0 Pentadecanoic
0.01 %
C15:1 Pentadecenoic
<0.01 %
C16:0 Hexadecanoic (Palmitic)
3.66 %
C16:1 Hexadecenoic (Palmitoleic)
0.90 %
C17:0 Heptadecanoic (Margaric)
0.02 %
C17:1 Heptadecenoic (Margaroleic)
0.01 %
C18:0 Octadecanoic (Stearic)
0.98 %
C18:1 Octadecenoic (Oleic)
6.40 %
C18:2 Octadecadienoic (Linoleic)
3.40 %
C18:3 Octadecatrienoic (Linolenic)
0.94 %
C18:4 Octadecatetraenoic
0.03 %
C20:0 Eicosanoic (Arachidic)
0.02 %
C20:1 Eicosenoic (Gadoleic)
0.09 %
C20:2 Eicosadienoic
0.03 %
C20:3 Eicosatrienoic
0.02 %
C20:4 Eicosatetraenoic (Arachidonic)
0.06 %
C20:5 Eicosapentaenoic
0.03 %
C21:5 Heneicosapentaenoic
<0.01 %
C22:0 Docosanoic (Behenic)
<0.01 %
C22:1 Docosenoic (Erucic)
0.01 %
C22:2 Docosadienoic
<0.01 %
C22:3 Docosatrienoic
<0.01 %
C22:4 Docosatetraenoic
0.01 %
C22:5 Docosapentaenoic
<0.01 %
C22:6 Docosahexaenoic
0.03 %
C24:0 Tetracosanoic (Lignoceric)
<0.01 %
C24:1 Tetracosenoic (Nervonic)
<0.01 %
C18:2 Octadecadienoic Omega 6
3.37 %
Page 2 of 3

#: 2467
AR-14-QD-097763-01
Result
Test
QD089 - Fatty Acids-Omega 6 & 3 %W/W (Cont.)
C18:3 Octadecatrienoic Omega 3
C18:4 Octadecatetraenoic Omega 3
C20:2 Eicosadienoic Omega 6
C20:3 Eicosatrienoic Omega 3
C20:4 Eicosatetraenoic Omega 3
C20:5 Eicosapentaenoic Omega 3
C21:5 Heneicosapentaenoic Omega 3
C22:2 Docosadienoic Omega 6
C22:3 Docosatrienoic, Omega 3
C22:4 Docosatetraenoic Omega 6
C22:5 Docosapentaenoic Omega 3
C22:6 Docosahexaenoic Omega 3
Fatty Acids, Sum Of Omega 3 Calc.
Total Fatty Acids Calc.
QD408 - L-Carnitine (Petfoods, natural matrices)
Analytical Biochemistry 79 (pg 190-201) 1977
L-Carnitine
0.91 %
0.03 %
0.01 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.05 %
0.03 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.03 %
0.99 %
3.51 %
16.83 %
84.9 mg/kg
*The test result is covered by our current A2LA accreditation.

Respectfully Submitted,
Deena Olsen
Biological Testing
Local ComLIMS Responsible
Cert:3329:01
Results shown in this report relate solely to the item submitted for analysis.
All results are reported on an "As Received" basis unless otherwise stated.
Reports shall not be reproduced except in full without written permission of
Eurofins Scientific, Inc. Measurement of Uncertainty can be obtained upon request.
Page 3 of 3
Chemical Testing
Cert:2927:01
EXHIBIT E

#: 2469
Tel. +1 515 265 1461
Fax. +1 515 266 5453

Sample Description: Dog Food - Bits
Client Sample Code: L222 20:01
PO Number: P98T20140114-01

Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Sample Reference: Blue Life Protection Formula
AR-14-QD-097765-01
Test
Result

AOAC 982.30 mod.
Taurine
0.01 %
AOAC 975.44 mod.
Lysine (Total)
1.19 %
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
671 IU/100 g
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
671 IU/100 g
* Retinol
1,540 IU/100 g
* Total Vitamin A
2,210 IU/100 g
* Biotin
0.0519 mg/100 g
AOAC 992.05 mod.
* Folic Acid, Total
0.139 mg/100 g
AOAC 944.13
* Niacin
7.24 mg/100 g
AOAC 942.23 mod.
1.20 mg/100 g
AOAC 952.20 / 45.2.02
Vitamin B12
4.55 g/100 g
AOAC 970.65 mod.
0.641 mg/100 g
AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
Page 1 of 3

#: 2470
AR-14-QD-097765-01
Test
Result

AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
* Pantothenic acid
2.51 mg/100 g
AOAC 967.22 mod.
2.20 mg/100 g
EN 12821:2009
* Vitamin D2
<25.0 IU/100 g
* Vitamin D3
243 IU/100 g
* Alpha-Tocopherol
7.84 mg/100 g
* Beta-Tocopherol
0.197 mg/100 g
* Gamma-Tocopherol
8.87 mg/100 g
* Delta-Tocopherol
4.63 mg/100 g
21.5 mg/100 g
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.06 %
0.01 %
C15:0 Pentadecanoic
<0.01 %
C15:1 Pentadecenoic
<0.01 %
2.51 %
0.59 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.66 %
4.49 %
2.66 %
1.15 %
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.07 %
C20:2 Eicosadienoic
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.04 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
C22:2 Docosadienoic
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
2.64 %
Page 2 of 3

#: 2471
AR-14-QD-097765-01
Result
Test
L-Carnitine
1.13 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.04 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
1.17 %
2.73 %
12.43 %
98.1 mg/kg

Deena Olsen
Biological Testing
Cert:3329:01
Page 3 of 3
Chemical Testing
Cert:2927:01
EXHIBIT F

#: 2473
Tel. +1 515 265 1461
Fax. +1 515 266 5453

Sample Description: Cat Food - Kibbles
PO Number: P98T20140114-01

Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Sample Reference: Blue Healthy Living
AR-14-QD-097762-02
This analytical report supersedes AR-14-QD-097762-01.
Test
Result

AOAC 982.30 mod.
Taurine
0.38 %
AOAC 975.44 mod.
Lysine (Total)
2.43 %
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
30.5 IU/100 g
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
30.5 IU/100 g
* Retinol
1,180 IU/100 g
* Total Vitamin A
1,210 IU/100 g
* Biotin
0.0853 mg/100 g
AOAC 992.05 mod.
* Folic Acid, Total
0.401 mg/100 g
AOAC 944.13
* Niacin
26.8 mg/100 g
Corrected Result

AOAC 942.23 mod.
3.66 mg/100 g
AOAC 952.20 / 45.2.02
Vitamin B12
12.0 g/100 g
AOAC 970.65 mod.
1.59 mg/100 g
Page 1 of 3

#: 2474
AR-14-QD-097762-02
Test
Result

AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
* Pantothenic acid
1.99 mg/100 g
AOAC 967.22 mod.
2.77 mg/100 g
EN 12821:2009
* Vitamin D2
<25.0 IU/100 g
* Vitamin D3
159 IU/100 g
* Alpha-Tocopherol
6.82 mg/100 g
* Beta-Tocopherol
0.197 mg/100 g
* Gamma-Tocopherol
4.56 mg/100 g
* Delta-Tocopherol
6.32 mg/100 g
17.9 mg/100 g
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
0.23 %
0.03 %
C15:0 Pentadecanoic
0.02 %
C15:1 Pentadecenoic
<0.01 %
4.49 %
1.20 %
0.03 %
0.02 %
1.21 %
7.18 %
3.39 %
0.24 %
0.05 %
0.02 %
0.11 %
C20:2 Eicosadienoic
0.04 %
0.04 %
0.15 %
0.16 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
0.01 %
C22:2 Docosadienoic
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.14 %
0.02 %
0.02 %
3.33 %
Page 2 of 3

#: 2475
AR-14-QD-097762-02
Result
Test
L-Carnitine
0.19 %
0.05 %
0.03 %
0.03 %
<0.01 %
0.04 %
0.01 %
0.14 %
0.16 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.03 %
0.04 %
0.02 %
0.14 %
0.58 %
3.62 %
18.92 %
39.2 mg/kg

David Gross
Biological Testing
Support Services Manager
Cert:3329:01
Page 3 of 3
Chemical Testing
Cert:2927:01
EXHIBIT G

#: 2477
Tel. +1 515 265 1461
Fax. +1 515 266 5453

Sample Description: Dog Food - Kibbles
PO Number: P98T20140114-01

Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Mayer Brown LLP

Chicago, IL 60606
Sample Reference: Blue Life Protection Formula
AR-14-QD-097764-01
Test
Result

AOAC 982.30 mod.
Taurine
0.10 %
AOAC 975.44 mod.
Lysine (Total)
1.57 %
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
38.6 IU/100 g
AOAC 974.29 Mod.
* -carotene
38.6 IU/100 g
* Retinol
1,060 IU/100 g
* Total Vitamin A
1,100 IU/100 g
* Biotin
0.0421 mg/100 g
AOAC 992.05 mod.
* Folic Acid, Total
0.140 mg/100 g
AOAC 944.13
* Niacin
10.5 mg/100 g
AOAC 942.23 mod.
1.02 mg/100 g
AOAC 952.20 / 45.2.02
Vitamin B12
10.7 g/100 g
AOAC 970.65 mod.
0.925 mg/100 g
AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
Page 1 of 3

#: 2478
AR-14-QD-097764-01
Test
Result

AOAC 945.74 (mod.)
* Pantothenic acid
2.55 mg/100 g
AOAC 967.22 mod.
< 0.440 mg/100 g
EN 12821:2009
* Vitamin D2
<25.0 IU/100 g
* Vitamin D3
111 IU/100 g
* Alpha-Tocopherol
8.63 mg/100 g
* Beta-Tocopherol
<0.100 mg/100 g
* Gamma-Tocopherol
2.03 mg/100 g
* Delta-Tocopherol
1.82 mg/100 g
12.5 mg/100 g
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
0.07 %
0.02 %
C15:0 Pentadecanoic
<0.01 %
C15:1 Pentadecenoic
<0.01 %
2.76 %
0.60 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.76 %
4.91 %
3.22 %
0.60 %
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.08 %
C20:2 Eicosadienoic
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.07 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
0.02 %
C22:2 Docosadienoic
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
3.19 %
Page 2 of 3

#: 2479
AR-14-QD-097764-01
Result
Test
L-Carnitine
0.58 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
<0.01 %
0.07 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.01 %
<0.01 %
<0.01 %
0.02 %
0.63 %
3.33 %
13.32 %
64.2 mg/kg

Deena Olsen
Biological Testing
Cert:3329:01
Page 3 of 3
Chemical Testing
Cert:2927:01
EXHIBIT H
12
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J

Purina Complaint Against Blue Buffalo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Purina Complaint Against Blue Buffalo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc.

#: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 1 of 36 PageID #: 2358

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 4:14-cv-00859-RWS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action for false advertising, commercial disparagement, and unjust

With tens of millions of dollars in advertising and a small army of in-store

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 2 of 36 PageID #: 2359

Fundamental to Blue Buffalos advertising are categorical assertions that Blue

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 3 of 36 PageID #: 2360

Blue Buffalo has spent millions on television

Consequently, and as the NAD concluded, Blue Buffalo is misleading consumers

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 4 of 36 PageID #: 2361

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 5 of 36 PageID #: 2362

On information and belief, Defendant Blue Buffalo is a Delaware corporation

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 6 of 36 PageID #: 2363

Blue Buffalo advertises a so-called TRUE BLUE PROMISE claiming

unequivocally that its products contain NO chicken/poultry by-product meals.

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 7 of 36 PageID #: 2364

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

explanations and Q&A segments on its website:

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 8 of 36 PageID #: 2365

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Blue Buffalos statements that its products contain NO chicken/poultry by-

Purina engaged an independent laboratory to conduct testing to determine the

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 9 of 36 PageID #: 2366

chicken/poultry by-product meals, Blue Buffalos products actually do contain a substantial

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 10 of 36 PageID #: 2367

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

NAD decision. Particularly, the NAD concluded:

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 11 of 36 PageID #: 2368

Blue Buffalos advertising features comparisons between Blue Buffalo products

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 12 of 36 PageID #: 2369

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 13 of 36 PageID #: 2370

(Blue Buffalo website: http://www.bluebuffalo.com/tv-commercials) (emphasis added).

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014; BLUE Dog Food commercial

To help misleadingly differentiate itself from other competing brands, Blue

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 14 of 36 PageID #: 2371

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 15 of 36 PageID #: 2372

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 16 of 36 PageID #: 2373

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 17 of 36 PageID #: 2374

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

A similar circumstance exists with respect to lysine, another important amino

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 18 of 36 PageID #: 2375

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 19 of 36 PageID #: 2376

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 20 of 36 PageID #: 2377

Source: Blue Buffalo website 9/14/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 21 of 36 PageID #: 2378

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 22 of 36 PageID #: 2379

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 23 of 36 PageID #: 2380

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 104 Filed: 11/13/14 Page: 24 of 36 PageID #: 2381

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

Source: Blue Buffalo website 4/22/2014

By falsely advertising its products as grain-free when its products actually