“It’s a Horrible Coincidence”: Corporate Responsibility and the 2007 Pet Food Recall

Abstract

The 2007 pet food recall has perhaps become best known for marking the beginning of the barrage of recalled items produced in China. The importance of this case, however, extends well beyond that distinction. The recall received extensive media coverage, its implications are vast, and the threads of corporate malfeasance woven throughout are plentiful. The pet food recall therefore provides an instructive case for examining discourses of corporate responsibility and crime in the media. To this end, an analysis of newspaper accounts of the recall in Canada, where the primary pet food manufacturing company involved is located, and in the United States, where the bulk of the affected pets and owners reside, is undertaken in this paper. Building on previous research examining mediated discourses of corporate crime, this paper documents a shift in the depictions of responsibility for the recall over time. However, a continued reluctance to invoke a ''social vocabulary of corporate crime'' is observed in the descriptions of certain actors' actions, particularly once juxtaposed against the behavior of constructed ''folk devils'' in the case.

Media Constructions of Responsibility for the Production and Mitigation of Environmental Harms: The Case of Mercury-Contaminated Fish

“…Further, in 2007, the Times began to discuss the risk posed by imports from China (particularly seafood) contaminated with mercury (Barboza and Yang 2007;Burros 2007). This timing is consistent with the spate of recalls of Chinese products in 2007 (see Fitzgerald 2009). …”

The ‘Underdog’ as ‘Ideal Victim’? The Attribution of Victimhood in the 2007 Pet Food Recall

“…Within the cultural criminology literature, Wright et al (1995) have delineated coding categories for examining media depictions of corporate crime cases which have been used in several studies examining media depictions of corporate crime cases (e.g., Bums and Orrick, 2003;Fitzgerald, 2009;Lofquist, 1997;McMullan and McClung, 2006;Slingerland et al, 2006). These categories include cause, intent, responsibility, sanctions, and harm.…”

“…These categories include cause, intent, responsibility, sanctions, and harm. This paper focuses exclusively on the latter category because the rich information uncovered around that theme (particularly because of the inter-species character of the case) is best suited for separate examination focusing specifically on victimology (for an examination of the other categories related to this case see Fitzgerald, 2009).…”

“…In the end, more than 150 brands of pet food were recalled (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2007). The recall was announced about a month after the company received reports that some animals who had consumed the food had fallen ill or had died (Fitzgerald, 2009;Nestle, 2008). Upon announcing the recall Menu reported that nine cats had died during 'taste test' trials and four pet deaths had been confirmed.…”

Nutritionism and the making of modern pet food

“…The crisis began somewhat quietly, with dogs and cats becoming seriously ill or dying unexpectedly all over the United States and Canada early in the year. Somewhat suddenly, on Friday, March 16 th , a co-packing company few had heard of recalled thousands of food packages under many different brand names (Fitzgerald, 2009). The problem, the company and FDA said, was the foods caused kidney problems or renal failure in cats and dogs.…”