Total Recall
T
he dog treat business is the fastest growing segment in the pet foods market, accounting for some $3.1 billion in sales in 2010, according to results of an American Pet Products Survey. That’s more than double the $1.41 billion that was spent on dog treats in the United States in 2003, according to the Pet Food Institute. A market research firm in California, IBIBWorld, Inc., estimates that by 2017, pet treats’ share of the current $18.7 billion spent on household pet food should rise to 19.8 percent, or more than $4.41 billion. That prognosis may take a dip, if consumers are made aware of the recent recalls and reports of possible contamination in several brands of treats that may have caused illnesses and possibly as many as 360 deaths in dogs. The latest recalls involve Boots and Barkley American Beef Bully Sticks, which have been voluntarily recalled by Kasel Associated Industries of Denver, Colorado because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella. According to a Federal Drug and Food Administration bulletin released on September 21, the affected American Beef Bully Sticks were distributed nationwide through Target retail stores from April through September of this year. The product was sold in a clear plastic bag containing six bully sticks each and had a bar code number of 647263899189. Although there have been no reported illnesses to date in animals or humans in connection with this problem, the manufacturer is also recalling all lot numbers associated with the product because four other lot codes tested positive through analysis by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture. Consumers with these products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund and contact Kasel Associated Industries at 1-800-218-4417. On the heels of the Boots and Barkley Bully Sticks recall comes word from Sunland, Inc. that its voluntary recall of some dozens of its human peanut butter food products has now been expanded to include a pet food product, Dogsbutter with Flax PB, also due to contamination with Salmonella. The FDA released a bulletin on September 24 stating that “between June 11, 2012 and September 2, 2012, twenty-nine people reported Salmo-
Offthe
nella Bredeney PFGE matching illnesses in approximately 18 states, including Washington, California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, according to a report issued on September 22, 2012 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” Consumers are urged to discard the recalled product immediately and to contact Sunland, Inc. at 866-837-1018. If there is a silver lining to be found amidst the many recent recalls, it’s the fact that some of the recalls were voluntary and, as was the case with the Boots and Barkley Bully Sticks, the result of a routine sampling by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture, which revealed that the finished products contained the Salmonella bacteria, and not as a result of reported illnesses. As a precaution, Kasel Associated Industries has ceased the production and distribution
of the product while it, along with the FDA, continues its investigation into the source of the contamination. This is in stark contrast to the recurring reports of possible contamination in chicken jerky treats made in China or made from chicken that has been exported from China, which have been surfacing since 2007. While the FDA has issued three alerts in the past five years cautioning consumers and warning of possible contamination in these treats and has received over 2,200 reports of pet illnesses in that time period, including 360 canine deaths in the past 18 months from all 50 states and six Canadian provinces, there has been no recall — mandatory or voluntary — from the FDA or from any of the companies that bring these treats to market. Even the American Kennel Club is even feeling the heat in this regard, as its logo appears on some packaged treats, which may be interpreted as a ‘seal of approval’ of sorts (for opinions on this subject see this week’s ‘Question of the Week’ on pg. 22). Despite the FDA’s ongoing investigation that includes a wide variety of experts including toxicologists, epidemiologists, veterinary researchers, forensic chemists, microbiologists, field investigators, senior agency officials and even the help of NASA, no source of contamination has yet been found in the treats. So the FDA has apparently taken the stance that 2,200 reports of illness and 360 deaths from dogs consuming these treats is insufficient for instituting a recall. My calls and emails to the FDA this week received this brief email reply from Laura Kapelle Bradbard, Director of The Center for Veterinary Medicine at the FDA, “FDA has not determined the cause of the dog illnesses associated with jerky pet treats. All of our most current information is posted to our website. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm319463.htm As soon as we have new information, we will post it online.” As part of a Q and A provided on its website on August 15, here’s how the FDA answers its own question of “Why aren’t these products being taken off the market?” There is nothing preventing a company from conducting a voluntary recall. It is important to understand that unless a contaminant is detected and we have evidence that a product is adulterated, we are limited in what regulatory actions we can take. The regulations don’t allow for products to be removed based on complaints alone. This is an ongoing in-
Leash BY SHAUN COEN
50 Dog News
vestigation and FDA will notify the public if a recall in initiated. By claiming its hands are tied in this matter the FDA may be perceived as kicking the can down the road and placing the onus on the companies manufacturing and distributing the treats, which allows for these companies in turn to say they are following the FDA’s lead and that if there’s no discernible evidence that these products are potentially harmful or even deadly to dogs there’s no need for a recall. According to NBC news and the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association’s web site, FDA official Tracy DuVernoy of the agency’s Coordinated Response and Evaluation Network told veterinarians in attendance at the August AVMA conference,“Two thousand complaints since 2007 is an incredibly small subset of the 15 million animals estimated to consume these treats…Therefore, it seems that this may very well be some sort of intermittent issue, or it might just be an idiosyncratic reaction within that individual animal.” That’s not the sort of answer that would be very comforting to people like Rita Desollar, whose beloved canine companion, a seven year-old German shepherd dog, passed away days after eating chicken jerky treats. She’s taking matters into her own hands, contacting retailers directly and asking them to pull the treats from their shelves or to at least warn consumers that there have been thousands of complaints filed with the FDA about these products. On September 2, she took to the Internet to drum up support, filing a petition on change.org that will be sent to big box and chain retailers that carry the treats such as Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, Costco, Target, Safeway, Kroger and Walgreens. In less than a month, the petition had garnered over 63,000 signatures and some smaller, ‘mom and pop’ type retailers have already decided to discontinue carrying the treats. Until and unless the FDA finds a definitive answer, consumers should use caution and common sense when dispensing treats to their pets. It’s probably wishful thinking that corporations would forsake profits to err on the side of caution in this matter, so consumers must be concerned about their bottom lines as well. It must be reiterated that treats aren’t a necessary component to a canine’s diet. Commercially produced pet foot is very safe and contains all the nutrients that pets need, so pet owners may want to opt for feeding their dogs safer alternatives in the meantime, or reconsider feeding their pets treats altogether. Pet owners should take to the airwaves, the Internet and social media, like Rita Desollar has, to keep one another informed about the possibility of potential dangers lurking in seemingly innocuous treats. The informed, enlightened consumer is better equipped to make responsible choices for the beloved pets that have no say in the matter. This is not only a case of ‘buyer beware’, but buyer be wary and buyer be informed.