Editor’s note: The article has been updated to include an official response from ADM, denying the allegations in the lawsuit.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but what mightnourish cows might poison horses, and two horse owners have sued ADM for makingtheir feeds for the different livestock species in the same building,potentially putting horses at risk.

Plaintiffs Beth Berarov, of Michigan, and Annelisa Bindra,of South Carolina, filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court inChicago on July 19, accusing Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland ofnegligence and false advertising of its horse feed products, alleging theagribusiness giant knew it could be posing a fatal risk by making its horsefeed in the same facility it used for other animal products.

Berarov and Bindra said they each lost horses after feedingthem an ADM product containing a compound known as monensin, which thecomplaint described as “a chemical additive used to increase weight and marketvalue in cattle.” Making horse feed in the same facility as cattle feedcontaining the additive, they alleged, “poses an extraordinarily high,unacceptable and undisclosed risk of cross-contamination.”

The women say monensin poisoning can be detected in livehorses only a few days after consumption. The usual method for detection isduring a necropsy.

“Harm to horses that ingest monensin sometimes occursgradually, depending on the level of exposure,” per the complaint, “as monensindestroys a horse’s heart fibers, creating a potential for sudden and unexpectedheart failure that jeopardizes the lives and safety of both horse and rider.”Animals that survive exposure generally cannot be ridden or worked due to thedegree to which the chemical weakens their systems, the complaint said.

In their complaint, the women said the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration requires livestock feeds containing monensin to carry a warningabout exposure to horses and “also recognizes the particular risk ofcross-contamination of medical additives in animal feed.”

The complaint cited verbatim quotes from ADM’s promotionalmaterials touting the health and safety of its livestock food products, as wellas a press release issued in response to a horse death at Camelot Farms, where Bindrastabled her horse. In that release, “ADM stated unreservedly and in bold print,‘Generations of healthy, winning horses have shown that horse feed produced inmulti-species facilities is safe.’”

Berarov, who owns and operates Moonlyte Equestrian Center inCarleton, Mich., said she owned 13 horses and cared for six others, all fedexclusively ADM products. In March 2015, she discovered “several of her horseswere becoming ill, with symptoms including ‘tying-up’ after little or noexertion, tachycardia, backline deformities, irritability, lethargy and severeweight loss.” Nine of her horses were euthanized, all having “permanent cardiacand skeletal muscle damage as a result of ingesting the (ADM) products,” shealleged.

ADM issued a statement in response.

“We believe the claims are meritless, and we will vigorously defend ourselves,” said ADM spokesperson Jackie Anderson. “At ADM Alliance Nutrition, we have been providing safe and nutritious feed and feed ingredients for more than 100 years. Our processes comply with FDA guidelines, and we are confident that our feeds are safe.”

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify a class ofadditional plaintiffs, which would include anyone who bought an ADM horse foodor supplement. The complaint did not specify the time span within whichpotential class members may have purchased the horse feed.

Formal allegations against ADM in the complaint includedbreach of the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, violation of the IllinoisConsumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, negligent productsrepresentation, strict products liability, unjust enrichment and breach ofexpress warranties.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, theplaintiffs seek a court order requiring ADM to remove the offending statementsfrom its marketing materials and engage in a corrective advertising campaign,and to force ADM to modify its manufacturing process or at least labelpackaging to inform consumers of the alleged potential harm. They also wantrestitution, including actual, statutory and punitive damages, and have askedthe court to order ADM to repay all profits from the products in question.

Representing Berarov and Bindra in this action are attorneyswith the firm of Bailey & Glasser, with offices in Chicago and Charleston,W.Va.