Overview
2007 Pet Food Recalls (Melamine)
The products and the contamination
Beginning in March 2007, cat and dog food brands across North America, Europe, and South Africa were recalled after kidney failure in pets was linked to melamine-contaminated ingredients imported from China. The contamination was traced to vegetable protein ingredients — wheat gluten, rice protein, and later corn gluten — used to thicken and bulk out pet food, especially in wet "cuts in gravy" products. The Canadian company Menu Foods, based in Streetsville, Ontario, issued the first voluntary recall, and its products — representing nearly a hundred brands of cat and dog food — accounted for the largest share of the withdrawals. In the following weeks, dozens of other manufacturers that had received the same contaminated ingredients recalled their own brands, and several major companies ultimately withdrew more than five thousand products.
Who was harmed
The affected animals were primarily cats and dogs that developed acute kidney failure after eating the contaminated food. By the end of March 2007, veterinary organizations reported more than 100 pet deaths among nearly 500 cases of kidney failure, and the FDA subsequently received reports of thousands of animal deaths, including a large number of cats. Owners were advised to watch for loss of appetite, lethargy, vomiting, and changes in water consumption or urination. Research pointed to a toxic combination of melamine and cyanuric acid: the two chemicals formed insoluble, spoke-like crystals in animal kidneys that were suspected of blocking kidney function. Cats appeared more sensitive than dogs, and the exact role of each compound remained under study. The episode also fed into a broader Chinese protein export contamination investigation, raising concerns about the human food supply in China and abroad.
Investigation
Initial testing focused on aminopterin after a New York State laboratory reported finding it in samples, but neither Cornell University nor the FDA could replicate that result. By late March, Cornell had confirmed the presence of melamine in the recalled foods, in the wheat gluten used to make them, and in the tissues and urine of dead and sick pets; the FDA and Cornell jointly announced the confirmation. Chinese authorities closed the two Chinese companies linked to the contaminated protein, and a wider investigation of Chinese protein exports followed.
Litigation
As word of the recall and the animal deaths spread, individual lawsuits were filed against Menu Foods over the deaths of affected pets, alleging negligence in testing the food before distribution and in delaying the recall. A Chicago owner's suit expanded into class-action status with more than two hundred plaintiffs, and an Ontario, Oregon family filed a separate class-action complaint citing emotional and economic loss. Menu Foods faced dozens of class-action lawsuits, and the company announced it would reimburse pet owners who could trace their pets' illnesses to its products. The article does not document a civil settlement for this episode.
Outcome
The recalls continued into 2008, and the episode is recorded in this entry as a recall resolved in 2008. The crisis prompted calls in the United States for greater government regulation of pet foods, which had previously been self-regulated by manufacturers, and a Senate oversight hearing was held on the matter.
Settlement amounts
No settlement amount is public.
As of 2026-09-29, we have not found a published, reliable settlement amount for this matter. We update this section when amounts appear in court records or verified sources — the change will be logged in the updates section.
Key dates
- January 1, 2008Resolved (year only)
Updates
- Updated Sep 29, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-29) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
- Updated Sep 23, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-23) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
- Updated Sep 22, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-22) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
- Updated Sep 13, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-13) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
- Updated Sep 9, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-09) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
- Updated Sep 7, 2026Imported from historical archive (research/tort-history, session A 2026-09-07) — page content loaded from content/2007-pet-food-recalls.md (published).
Notable filings
No notable filings recorded yet. Docket entries are added from public court records as they appear.
Case record — archived
This page is neutral reference material — not legal advice. The litigation for this matter has concluded, so case reviews are closed. For advice on your own situation, contact a licensed attorney in your country.