The One Scandal That Soured Rachael Ray's Reputation Forever

Rachael Ray has slapped her name on everything from cookware to cookbooks, but her pet food line, Nutrish, could be the one endorsement she'll stop barking about. A $5 million class action lawsuit claims the brand's "natural" label is anything but, and that it's been serving up synthetic ingredients along with misleading marketing.

When Ray launched Nutrish in 2014, she hyped it as what is essentially doggie fine dining. She even introduced DISH, a "super premium" line of dog food based on her own recipes, made with ingredients like slow-roasted chicken and farm-grown potatoes. "DISH was born as a dog-friendly mimic of the dishes I prepare daily on my show and at home," she told Forbes, adding that her dog Isaboo, who is a picky eater, enjoyed the same food she and her husband did. Ray also insisted she taste-tests every single product herself which, while admirable, was meant to back up her confidence in the brand. "Nutrish can't be the cheapest food in the marketplace, but I believe 10,000 percent that our pet food is by far the best quality in the marketplace," she said.

But four years later, plaintiff Markeith Parks called Ray's bluff, noting that the natural claims are "false, deceptive, and misleading." In the lawsuit, they alleged Nutrish's products are far from natural as they apparently contain a controversial herbicide associated with some health concerns. "The products contain the unnatural chemical glyphosate, a potent biocide and endocrine disruptor, with detrimental health effects that are still becoming known," the suit read. Nutrish, for its part, dug in its heels, insisting it would never toss anything shady into your pup's kibble. However, for a brand that loves to preach trust and transparency, this lawsuit definitely put a dent in Ray's once-pristine image.

To be fair to Rachael Ray's Nutrish brand, while it didn't exactly wave the white flag, it did promise to take a closer look at its product line. "We are in the process of reviewing the details of the claim but strongly stand behind the quality of our products, ingredients, and sourcing practices," Bobby Modi, vice president of pet food and pet snacks for the brand, said in a statement. "As animal lovers and humans, it goes without saying that we do not add pesticides to our products as an ingredient. We plan to aggressively fight these claims."

The lawsuit didn't exactly hold up in court, either. By April 2019, it was thrown out. Apparently, it didn't actually prove how much glyphosate — if there was any at all — was in the food or whether it was dangerous. A revised complaint followed only to be dismissed again, with the court ruling that any trace amounts were minimal, well below FDA limits, and unlikely to fool the average pet parent.

What's curious, though, is how mum Ray stayed throughout the whole ordeal. While her team did the damage control, she opted to sit this one out — despite being the literal face of the brand. Amy Prenner, communications expert and founder of The Prenner Group, thinks that was a missed opportunity. "Issuing a statement clarifying her role in the brand and expressing concern for consumer safety would have demonstrated accountability," said Prenner, noting that using her massive platform to face the issue head-on could've softened the blow, too. After all, lawsuits can end in court, but PR disasters tend to stick. "Public opinion is shaped by headlines and sentiment, which can be far more damaging to a celebrity's brand and career," noted Prenner.