Tainted whey ruling challenged in US courts

In September, the Minnesota headquartered company asked the Seventh Circuit to overturn US district judge William Griesbach’s grant of summary judgement in August to Daniel Ratajczak, Scott Ratajczak and Angela Ratajczak, who used to work for Packerland Whey Products Inc.

But it is not clear as to the status of that appeal. Land O'Lakes did not respond to our request for clarification prior to publication. A spokesperson simply told us: "We have appealed."​

Griesbach found against Land O'Lakes in the August 2016 judgement, with the district judge concluding the firm had provided no supporting evidence its profits were hit due to production problems resulting from the urea contamination of the whey product.

“Land O’Lakes concedes that it did not lose any profits as a result of using Packerland WPC. As a result, Land O’Lakes has failed to show that it has suffered any actual injury,”​ noted the ruling.

Griesbach's ruling noted Land O’Lakes did not allege there was any harm that was passed on to its customers, nor that it sold an inferior product as a result of the Ratajczaks’ actions or that it was forced to increase prices because of production difficulties. “Land O’Lakes has presented no evidence that any animals suffered or were malnourished as a result of the decreased protein levels in Packerland’s WPC. None of Land O’Lakes’ customers complained and no products were returned,”​ added the US district judge.

Background​

Since the original suit filing in 2014 by Land O’Lakes, there had been several motions and responses back and forth between the sides.

Land O’Lakes alleged that from 2006 through 2012, it paid over $15m for the whey protein concentrate without knowing that it was non-conforming. And it claimed the Packerland executives had tried to cover up the use of the urea.

Urea is an animal urine derivative commonly used in fertilizer. It is also used as a cost effective replacement for a part of the protein in a cattle feed ration when soybean prices are high.

A non-protein nitrogen (NPN) compound, it is converted into proteins by the bacteria in the rumen of cows.

However Land O’Lakes said adding NPN compounds like urea as ingredients to commercial feed for animals with non-functioning rumen systems like calves, as a source of equivalent crude protein, is completely illegal.

It added that failure to disclose the addition of an NPN on the label of commercial feed also constituted a “violation of law”.​

In another development in the case, last month saw the Packerland executives request that a Wisconsin federal court prevent their insurer from bringing a new claim to recoup fees and costs, since the suit had been closed.

August 2016 findings​

  LandOLakesvRatajczak_Doc180 by Jane Byrne on Scribd