Is There Any Legal Remedy for the Loss of a Cat?

Sixteen cats and dogs have died and others are sick from eating gourmet pet food containing Aminopterin, a drug used in treating cancer in the United States and for exterminating rats in other countries. (Of course, no one knows how many unreported deaths or sickness there are.) The poisoned food was put on the market between December 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007. The kitten you see to the right--Kaelin-- is approximately fifteen months old. At fourteen months, he was diagnosed with severe kidney disease. The ultra sound showed that Kaelin's kidney looked like a normal kidney of a fourteen year old cat. When asked about Kaelin's prognosis, the veterinarian replied "Think weeks or maybe months, not years." Kaelin's younger brother--Hendrix--pictured below--is eight months old and has also elevated kidney levels. Both kittens were placed on prescription cat food for cats with kidney disease. I can already hear the tough-minded exclaim. "Ok, Bobby, pet lovers are saddened, but what does this have to do with law. Please, Bobby, stay on point."

Here's the point. How do I prove that the kidney disease killing both kittens, from different breeders, was caused by Eukanabu, one of the gourmet foods listed as contaminated and at the time my kittens' daily feast? Without receipts, or the actual products, what counts as evidentiary proof that the disease was caused by the tainted food? Yes, I have diagnoses that both kittens suffer from kidney disease. But how do I tie their kidney disease with the product in question? And even if I can provide an arguable case that there exists a causal chain between the product and the disease, what kind of damages can I claim? Can one claim "pain and suffering" for the loss of a feline friend? Kidney disease is a common killer of cats, but almost always at an advanced age, not as kittens. By contrast, can one reasonably pass off as coincidental that both kittens developed kidney disease during the same period that they ate contaminated food, and yet the food was not the cause of their disease? If not the food, what other conceivable explanation is available? Maybe, I need a good lawyer.