Animal Health Foundation Blog

Archive for the ‘Pet Food Recalls’ Category

MEOW MIX CAT FOOD RECALL

Thursday, April 15th, 2021

The J. M. Smucker Co. Issues Limited, Voluntary Recall of Two Lots of Meow Mix® Original Choice Dry Cat Food for Potential Salmonella Contamination

When a company announces a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert, the FDA posts the company’s announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.

https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/j-m-smucker-co-issues-limited-voluntary-recall-two-lots-meow-mixr-original-choice-dry-cat-food#recall-announcement

Summary

Company Announcement Date:
FDA Publish Date:
Product Type:
Animal & Veterinary
Pet Food
Reason for Announcement:
Potential Salmonella Contamination
Company Name:
J. M. Smucker Co.
Brand Name:
Meow Mix®
Product Description:
Meow Mix® Original Choice Dry Cat Food

Company Announcement

Orrville, OH – The J. M. Smucker Co. today announced a limited, voluntary recall of two lots of Meow Mix® Original Choice Dry Cat Food (30LB bag) due to potential salmonella contamination. The Company has received no reports of pet illness or adverse reaction and has issued this recall out of an abundance of caution. The impacted products were sold at select Walmart stores in IL, MO, NE, NM, OK, UT, WI and WY. No other Meow Mix® products are impacted by this recall.

If pet parents have products matching the following description in their possession, they should stop feeding it to their cats and dispose of it immediately. This information can be found on the bottom and back of each bag.

Product Name Retail UPC Code Lot Code Best If Used By Date
Meow Mix® Original Choice Dry Cat Food
30 LB Bag
2927452099 1081804 9/14/2022
Meow Mix® Original Choice Dry Cat Food
30 LB Bag
2927452099 1082804 9/15/2022

Salmonella can affect cats eating a product contaminated with Salmonella bacteria and can spread to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not washed their hands after having contact with their cat’s foods, food surfaces and/or cats that have been in contact with the impacted product. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Symptoms of Salmonella infection in cats may include vomiting or diarrhea. Some cats may not develop diarrhea, but may have a decreased appetite, fever, and excessive salivation. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. Some cats may not appear sick but can spread infection to other animals and humans in the household.

Pet parents who have questions or would like to report adverse reactions should call 1-888-569-6728, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. ET or visit www.meowmix.com/contact-usExternal Link Disclaimer.

This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


Company Contact Information

Consumers:
 1-888-569-6728
 www.meowmix.com/contact-us
Media:
 330-684-3892
 media.inquiry@jmsmucker.com

FDA Notice – Bravo Packing, Inc. Expanded Recall

Thursday, March 18th, 2021

Label – PERFORMANCE DOG, FOR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION ONLY, Ingredient Statement & Guaranteed Analysis, BRAVOS

 

Bravo Packing, Inc. of Carneys Point, NJ is expanding the previously announced voluntary recall of two pet food products to now include all pet food and bones in all package sizes. During an FDA inspection, samples collected tested positive for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes and resulted in a recall due to the potential health risks to humans and pets.  Bravo Packing, Inc. is expanding the recall due to potential cross contamination. (Full list of products CLICK HERE)

BRAVO Recalls Performance Dog Food

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

 

Bravo Packing, Inc. of Carneys Point, NJ is recalling all Ground Beef and Performance Dog, a frozen raw pet food because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes

 

READ MORE HERE

 

Sunshine Mills, Inc. Expands Recall Of Pet Food Products Due To Potentially Elevated Levels Of Aflatoxin

Saturday, October 10th, 2020

Sunshine Mills, Inc. is expanding its voluntary recall of certain pet food products that were made with corn that contained Aflatoxin at levels above FDA’s action levels.

Billy + Margot Dog Food Recall

Thursday, September 24th, 2020

Billy+Margot Wild Kangaroo Dog Food Recalled For Possible Salmonella

 

RECALL-Natural Balance Ultra Premium Chicken and Liver Pate Formula CAT Food

Monday, July 6th, 2020

The J. M. Smucker Company today announced a voluntary recall of one lot of Natural Balance® Ultra Premium Chicken & Liver Paté Formula canned cat food due to health concerns likely associated with elevated levels of choline chloride.

Ingesting impacted product may cause nausea with excessive salivation, constricted pupils and poor vision, diarrhea or vomiting to more severe symptoms including difficulty walking, muscle shaking, tremors, irregular heartbeat, difficulty breathing, possible cardiac or respiratory failure and, in extreme situations, death. Pet parents are encouraged to contact their cat’s veterinarian immediately if their cat is displaying any of these symptoms.

If pet parents have any product matching the following description in their possession, they should stop feeding it to their cats and dispose of the product. This information can be found on the bottom of each can.

Product Name Retail UPC Code Lot Code Best If Used By Date
Natural Balance® Ultra Premium Chicken & Liver Paté Formula canned cat food
5.5 oz can
2363353227 9217803 08 04 2021

These products are most commonly sold in pet specialty retailers and online throughout the United States and Canada. No other Natural Balance® products are impacted by this recall.

The Company has received reports of adverse reactions. Pet parents that have questions or would like to report adverse reactions should call 888-569-6828, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. ET or email anytime at info@naturalbalanceinc.com.

This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

FDA recall notice: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/j-m-smucker-company-issues-voluntary-recall-one-lot-natural-balancer-ultra-premium-chicken-liver

Warning Letter to Hills Pet Nutrition from FDA

Saturday, December 14th, 2019

WARNING LETTER

Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc.MARCS-CMS 576564 —

Delivery Method:
VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Product:
Animal & Veterinary

Recipient:
Peter Brons-Poulsen
President and CEO
Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc.

400 SW 8th Ave.TopekaKS 66603United States

Issuing Office:
Office of Human and Animal Foods Division II West

United States

 913-495-5100

Dear Mr. Brons-Poulsen:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted inspections of your pet food manufacturing facility located at 320 NE Crane St., Topeka, Kansas on February 1 through February 19, 2019 and March 25 through 27, 2019.  These inspections were conducted in response to a Reportable Food Registry report (RFR) event (EON-378261) filed by your firm and in response to your recall of products marketed with toxic levels of vitamin D. FDA also conducted a complaint investigation from February 11 through February 12, 2019, during which FDA obtained samples of your canned dog food.

The inspections and the investigation confirmed that animal food products with unsafe levels of vitamin D were manufactured and marketed by your firm.  You determined the unsafe levels of vitamin D were the result of an ingredient that you received and accepted in a manner not in accordance with your receiving procedures, and that was subsequently incorporated in the animal food products. The unsafe amounts of vitamin D cause your products listed below to be adulterated because they bear or contain a food additive that is unsafe within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).1

Furthermore, the inspection revealed violations of FDA’s Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls requirements for animal food found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 507, subpart C (21 CFR part 507, subpart C). This causes your products to be adulterated within the meaning of the FD&C Act.2

The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is adulterated is a prohibited act under the FD&C Act.3 Furthermore, the failure to follow the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls requirements is also a prohibited act under the FD&C Act.4 You may find the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA’s regulations through links on the FDA’s website at www.fda.gov.

At the close of the February 1 through February 19, 2019 inspection, you were issued a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations.  We received your written responses dated March 12, 2019, May 23, 2019 and August 30, 2019.  We have reviewed your responses and we discuss your violations and your corrective actions below.

We acknowledge that your firm initiated several voluntary recalls for excessive amounts of vitamin D in various finished products. On January 31, 2019 your firm initiated a recall (RES# 82018) of twenty-five (25) different canned dog food products manufactured by your firm. On March 20, 2019 your firm determined that additional products were affected. As a result, approximately twenty (20) additional lots of product previously listed in the original recall were added, and the recall was expanded to include eight (8) new products of canned dog food. On May 20, 2019 your recall was expanded yet again to include an additional lot. A comprehensive list of your recalled products can be found on FDA’s website at www.fda.gov.

Adulterated Animal Food – Unapproved Food Additive
On February 11 and 12, 2019, during a complaint investigation, FDA collected for vitamin D analysis two samples of your Hills Prescription Diet Digestive Care i/d Low Fat (SKU Number 10423) canned dog food. These samples were part of the lots covered by your recall. Testing of the products revealed the following results:

  • Lot code BEST BEFORE 10 2020, T1911124 3912, found 100,170 to 107,282 IU/kg of vitamin D in your canned dog food.
  • Lot code BEST BEFORE 10 2020, T1911125 3912, found 102,829 to 102,346 IU/kg of vitamin D in your canned dog food.

A food additive is a substance that becomes a component of food unless it is generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown through scientific procedures to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.5 According to scientific literature reviewed and summarized by scientific committees in the National Research Council, and the 2017 Official Publication of the Association of American Feed Control Officials on pages 149-162, vitamin D in dog food is safe in the amount of 500 to 3,000 IU/kg.7 According to the scientific literature, concentrations of vitamin D in dog food above 4,000 IU/kg dry matter cause signs of vitamin D toxicosis, with severity of signs increasing with increasing concentrations of the vitamin.7 Although vitamin D is an essential nutrient that allows dogs to regulate the balance and retention of calcium and phosphorus, when high levels of vitamin D are consumed, excessive amounts are not excreted but are stored in fat tissue and the liver.  The adverse health consequences from consuming excessive levels of vitamin D can lead to kidney failure and even death.8

The above-referenced dog food samples contained vitamin D at levels in excess of 33 times the recommended safe upper limit. At these levels, vitamin D is not generally recognized as safe; therefore, it is a food additive. Under section 409 of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 348), a food additive is unsafe unless a regulation is in effect that prescribes the conditions under which the additive may be safely used, and the additive and its use or intended use are in conformity with that regulation. We are not aware of any regulation that would allow the use of vitamin D at the levels found in the above-referenced canned dog food. Therefore, the vitamin D is an unsafe food additive and the canned dog food containing these elevated levels of vitamin D is adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(i)].

Adulterated Animal Food – Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls Requirements
During our inspection of your facility, FDA Investigators noted violations of the Hazard Analysis and Risk- Based Preventive Controls requirements for animal food found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 507, subpart C (21 CFR part 507, subpart C).  These violations render your animal food products adulterated under the FD&C Act.9 Violations observed during the inspection include, but are not limited to, the following:

Your firm did not sufficiently assess the probability that a vitamin D toxicity or deficiency hazard will occur in the absence of a preventive control as required by 21 CFR 507.33(c)(1).

Specifically, your firm uses vitamin premix in the manufacture of animal food products, but your firm failed to implement your prerequisite program to ensure that the vitamin premix did not contain an excess of vitamin D, which is a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard that could occur in the absence of a preventive control.  As stated in your food safety plan’s risk assessment matrix for your vitamin premix, you were relying on a (b)(4) to prevent nutrient deficiencies and toxicity hazards (b)(4), which you classified as a high risk chemical hazard. You noted that “[i]f the raw materials or other ingredients do not contain nutrients at the expected levels, this may result in either a nutrient deficiency or toxicity hazard when the ingredient is incorporated into the animal food based on a preset formulation.” Your food safety plan also stated that “[c]hemical hazards identified as high risk require the hazard be analyzed and be within acceptable limits prior to unloading the specific raw material into the manufacturing facility.”

However, the vitamin premix was not analyzed and subsequently reviewed to ensure that the vitamin D added to final products from the premix would meet your firm’s pre-set formulation. Your ingredient specification for the vitamin premix included a target specification for vitamin D and states that the “Supplier must include Certificate of Analysis (b)(4),” but your firm did not obtain Certificates of Analysis (COA) upon receipt (b)(4) of vitamin premix from your supplier. Your firm also failed to test, evaluate against your specification, and subsequently reject the vitamin premix containing excess vitamin D, as required by your food safety plan.  As a result, you used vitamin premix containing a concentration of vitamin D that was outside your specification.

As a result of your failure to follow your food safety plan, the hazard of vitamin D toxicity was not adequately managed at your receiving step.  Therefore, you did not reduce the probability that the hazard would occur in the absence of a preventive control. As a result of your failure to consistently implement your pre-requisite program, a systematic failure of your food safety plan occurred that resulted in the recall of canned dog food as identified above.  The systematic failure also resulted in adulterated animal food, as described above.

Corrective Actions

We acknowledge your promised corrective actions in your written responses dated March 12, 2019, May 23, 2019, and August 30, 2019 to the Form FDA 483, which include implementing a (b)(4) Certificate of Analysis (COA) requirement for vitamin premixes and trace mineral premixes, revising the Receiving Procedure to address the need for (b)(4) COAs (b)(4), training personnel on the revised Receiving Procedure, integrating COA requirements into an internal system so that incoming vitamin and trace mineral premix ingredients cannot be received without conforming COAs, conducting an onsite audit of your supplier’s facility, revising your Food Safety Plan, and implementing a process preventive control for the (b)(4) steps to enhance control of the misformulation hazard.

We are unable to assess the adequacy of your corrective actions because many are preexisting procedures that were not followed consistently prior to the recall event. For example, your requirement for vitamin premixes with vitamin D to have a COA (b)(4) was documented in your ingredient specification before the recall.  This was further confirmed by your firm’s special instructions to your supplier (b)(4).  In your response to the Form FDA 483, you stated that your food safety plan was not intended to cover “misformulation” by your supplier. (b)(4) and noted that “[n]utrient deficiency or toxicity hazards can be the result of incorrect levels of nutrients in incoming raw materials or ingredients.”

Your response states that your firm is now implementing a process preventive control at the (b)(4) step; however, you did not provide adequate documentation demonstrating the implementation and effectiveness of the preventive control to include the associated management components as required by 21 CFR 507.39 and therefore we are unable to determine the adequacy of this corrective action.

The corrective action of a “process preventive control” at your (b)(4) step (b)(4). However, it does not address the root cause of this incident, which was accepting an ingredient without confirming that it contained vitamin levels that were within specification as required by your procedures.

FDA will verify your proposed voluntary corrective actions during a future inspection of your firm.

Conclusions

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations that exist at your facility.  You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations.  It is your responsibility to ensure your firm complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations.  You should take prompt action to correct the violation cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct this violation may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction.

Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct violations.  Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation.  If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which you will complete the correction.  If you do not believe that your products are in violation of the FD&C Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration.

Section 743 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 379j-31] authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees to cover FDA’s costs for certain activities, including reinspection-related costs.  A reinspection is one or more inspections conducted subsequent to an inspection that identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved.  Reinspection-related costs means all expenses, including administrative expenses incurred in connection with FDA’s arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of the reinspection and assessing and collecting the reinspection fees [21 U.S.C. § 379j-31(a)(2)(B)]. For a domestic facility, FDA will assess and collect fees for reinspection-related costs from the responsible party for the domestic facility. The inspection noted in this letter identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act.  Accordingly, FDA may assess fees to cover any reinspection-related costs.

Your firm’s response should be sent to Danial S. Hutchison, Compliance Officer, 8050 Marshall Drive, Suite 205, Lenexa, Kansas 66214.  If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Compliance Officer Hutchison at (913) 495-5154 or Danial.Hutchison@fda.hhs.gov.

Sincerely,
/S/
Cheryl A Bigham District Director
Program Division Director
Office of Human and Animal Foods Division II West

The New No-Grain Ingredient Coming to Your Pet Food Aisle

Monday, November 18th, 2019

Analysis by Dr. Karen Shaw Becker

Story at-a-glance

  • Despite growing concerns about the connection between grain-free formulas containing pulse crops and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs, the processed pet food industry continues to talk up the use of fava beans in grain-free pet food
  • In addition to the DCM connection, there are many other reasons pulse crops such as fava beans don’t belong in dog and cat food, e.g., they contain substances pets’ bodies can’t digest, that also interfere with mineral absorption

Despite the much-publicized suspected link between grain-free diets high in legumes and diet-related dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs, the processed pet food industry remains very committed to searching out biologically inappropriate pulse crops for potential use in dog and cat food.

A recent favorite is fava beans (also called faba and broad beans), which “may be the next new grain-free ingredient in the pet food aisle,” according to a recent article in a pet food industry publication.1 Last year the same publication promoted a 2017 study that suggests fava beans are an “effective ingredient for use in a commercial dog diet.”2

“It appears fava beans were well tolerated at all levels tested and only influenced digestibility at higher levels,” reported study co-author Greg Aldrich, PhD. “The dehulled fava beans in our study processed well in extrusion. They would be a solid contributor as an ingredient choice in modern pet foods.”3

This study is typical of pet food industry scientific research designed to see how much of a biologically inappropriate ingredient pets can ingest before it interferes with their digestion in an immediately measurable way. The dogs in the study didn’t develop noticeable digestive issues until they were subjected to higher levels of fava beans.

This is a considered a win by the industry, because they now have yet another inexpensive, plentiful, plant-based (i.e., biologically inappropriate) ingredient they can use to inflate the protein percentage in their formulas, and also potentially use to replace meat protein in vegetarian or vegan pet foods.

Why Pulse Crops Don’t Belong in Pet Food

Pulse crops, also called pulses or legumes, are plants with a pod. “Pulse” is the term used to identify the edible seeds of legumes, and is derived from the Latin word puls, meaning thick soup. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)4 recognizes 11 primary pulses:5

Dry beans (kidney, lima, azuki, mung, black gram, scarlet runner, ricebean, moth, and tepary) Lentil
Dry broad beans (fava, horse, broad, field) Bambara groundnut
Dry peas (garden, protein) Vetch
Chickpea Lupins
Dry cowpea Minor pulses (lablab, jack, winged, velvet, and yam beans)
Pigeon pea

Because they are high in fiber, folate, iron (when eaten with a source of vitamin C), and complex carbohydrates, and are also low in fat, pulse crops are considered nutritious for humans by some nutritionists, and not by others. Some experts advise keeping legume intake minimal for the same reason I recommend avoiding feeding these foods to pets — the presence of phytates and lectins that are naturally found in legumes.

Phytates are substances that carnivores can’t break down because they lack phytase, the enzyme necessary to process phytic acid. Phytates bind minerals (including zinc, iron, calcium and magnesium), leeching them out of your pet’s body. Lectins are sticky proteins that when consumed in large quantities may contribute to gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances and leaky gut.

Pet food producers and their ingredient suppliers are aware that many pet parents tend to believe foods that are healthy for humans are also healthy for dogs and cats. In fact, they use pet owners’ lack of knowledge about pet food ingredients to create and market biologically inappropriate diets. For example, one of the marketing approaches used to promote pet foods containing bean meal is weight loss.

The nutrient profile in beans may benefit some humans and other omnivores and herbivores, but carnivores thrive on animal — not plant — protein, and they don’t benefit physiologically from starch or high levels of dietary fiber. Cats are true carnivores and dogs are facultative carnivores, not omnivores or herbivores, but that pesky little fact certainly hasn’t diminished the pet food industry’s love affair with ingredients nature didn’t design dogs and cats to eat.

Most Pet Food Research is Conducted for the Benefit of Pet Food Companies, Not Dogs and Cats

Also good news for pet food producers is that fava beans “processed well in extrusion.” Extrusion, as we know, is a manufacturing method that has been used by the pet food industry for decades. About 95% of dry pet diets are produced using the extrusion process.

Batches of raw ingredients are mixed, sheared and heated under high pressure, forced through a spiral shaped screw and then through the die of the extruder machine. Extrudate is the result — a ribbon-like product that is then knife-cut and dried.

The high temperature used in extrusion (nearly 400°F) and the short time frame to process (under 5 minutes) creates continuous chemical and physical alterations to the ingredient mixture. This not only changes the molecular activity of the food, but also potentially contributes to a heavier carcinogenic load and profound levels of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). So, to review, the pet food industry’s takeaways from the study are:

  • Fava beans hold up well in the extrusion process
  • Fava beans in moderate amounts can be tolerated by dogs
  • Fava beans can be used to boost the protein percentages (misleadingly, in my opinion) in pet food formulas

Honestly, the simple fact that an ingredient such as fava beans must be tested in pets to see how much they can tolerate before they become ill is all the proof anyone should need that they didn’t evolve to eat that ingredient. Therefore, the intent and result of this study is 100% for the benefit of big pet food, and 0% for the benefit of the dogs and cats who will at some point be fed processed diets containing fava beans.

Legumes and Grain-Free Pet Food

As I mentioned earlier, there’s also cause for concern now that a link has been established between grain-free dog food containing legumes and a growing number of cases of the heart disease dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs. Of the DCM cases the FDA reviewed for its report published in June, 91% of the diets were grain-free and 93% contained peas and/or lentils.

It’s important to note that while legumes are being singled out as a potential problematic ingredient, no definitive test results have been released. However, grain-free kibble is often much higher in both whole carbohydrates and purified starches (e.g., pea starch, potato starch and tapioca starch) than grain-based dry dog food.

The higher the starch level in any pet food, the less protein is included (hence my suggestion to avoid both grains and other sources of unnecessary starch in all pet food). You can find my most recent update on the grain-free kibble/DCM issue, including feeding recommendations, here.

Champion Pet Food Lawsuit Amended to include DCM and other concerns

Thursday, July 25th, 2019

Champion Pet Food Lawsuit Amended includes DCM and other concerns

The lawsuit doesn’t appear to be officially accusing Champion of causing DCM, but it appears to be opening the door for that potential in the future.

The original lawsuit against Champion Pet Food filed in March 2018 included claims of “negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food “.

An amended complaint was filed in November 2018, adding “pentobarbital” risk to the lawsuit. Quoting the amended lawsuit against Champion: “It was recently revealed on information and belief that Defendants were knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently selling certain of the Contaminated Dog Foods from the DogStar Kitchens containing pentobarbital, a substance largely used to euthanize animals.”

And another amended complaint was filed in February 2019 challenging Champion Pet Food’s marketing claims of “regional” and “fresh” ingredients. This amended complaint stated: “It was recently revealed on information and belief that Defendants were knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently selling certain of the Contaminated Dog Foods from the DogStar® Kitchens containing pentobarbital that was caused by cross-contamination that resulted from its supplier, MOPAC, an eastern Pennsylvania rendering facility belonging to JBS USA Holdings, Inc. (“JBS”), having accepted and processed euthanized horses in earlier production runs for other customers.”

This third amended complaint against Champion Pet Food includes the following two mentions of DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy):

“Additionally, on July 12, 2018, the FDA issued a warning that “dogs eating certain pet foods containing peas, lentils, other legume seeds, or potatoes as main ingredients” were experiencing DCM, a heart muscle disease that results in an enlarged heart. “As the heart and its chambers become dilated, it becomes harder for the heart to pump, and heart valves may leak, leading to a buildup of fluids in the chest and abdomen. DCM often results in congestive heart failure.” Thereafter, on June 27, 2019, the FDA released a report of its investigation into DCM that disclosed Defendants’ brands account for 14.88 percent of reported cases of DCM in the past 5 years. Defendants were aware of the risk and the reported cases associated with the Contaminated Pet Foods from at least July 2018 and yet chose not to include any warning or link to the FDA investigation into DCM.”

“Yet, Defendants warrant, promise, represent, mislead, label, and/or advertise that the Contaminated Dog Foods are free of heavy metals, pentobarbital, toxins, BPA, and/or unnatural or other ingredients and would not pose a risk for pets developing Dilated Cardiomyopathy (“DCM”) by touting the Contaminated Dog Food as “Biologically Appropriate™” (a nutritional statement) and assuring the food represents an evolutionary diet that mirrors that of a wolf—free of anything “nature did not intend for your dog to eat.”

Other interesting issues of this amended lawsuit – but not fully explained in the complaint – are (item 166 found on page 76 – bold added):

“Defendants knew or should have known that the Contaminated Dog Foods did not have the ingredients, uses, and benefits described herein because:

They contain ingredients that are frozen, stored for years, and/or expired prior to manufacturing or composed of regrind kibble;

They are routinely manufactured with substitute ingredients not included in the Ingredient List, MeatMath®, or nutritional analysis;”

Lots of questions remain – unfortunately we’ll have to wait to see how this lawsuit unfolds for answers.

To read the full amended Champion Pet Food complaint, Click Here.

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food

Hemopet Responds to FDA’s Implications of 16 Brands

Monday, July 8th, 2019

Hemopet Responds to the FDA Implicating 16 Brands of Dog Food That May Cause Heart Disease in Dogs