Recall alert: Viva Raw Pet Food has recalled 9,760 pounds of raw dog and cat food because of listeria and salmonella contamination.
The recall was prompted by a consumer complaint, which subsequently led the FDA to acquire and test samples of the food from lot #22853. This may indicate a lapse in quality control at the manufacturing facility.
This particular lot was distributed between October 24, 2023, and December 6, 2023. The Viva Raw Recall was initiated on January 27th, 2024.
Salmonella can cause illness in both animals who consume the contaminated products and humans who handle them, posing a risk to both pet owners and their pets.
Listeria is a type of bacteria that can cause a foodborne illness called listeriosis when consumed.
Dogs can suffer from Listeria and Salmonella poisoning.
While it is more commonly associated with humans, dogs can become infected with Listeria or salmonella bacteria if they consume contaminated food, particularly raw or undercooked meat, or other foods contaminated with the bacteria.
Symptoms may include diarrhea, vomiting, fever, lethargy, and, in severe cases, neurological symptoms. If you suspect your dog may have consumed contaminated food, it’s important to consult a veterinarian for proper diagnosis and treatment.
Dogs can shed food-borne pathogens in their saliva and stool; when handling and feeding raw pet food it is important to use good hygiene and sanitation practices.
On their website, Viva Raw states “We use validated hurdle methods such as an organic lactic acid spray on all of meat & vegetable ingredients and monitor our product temperature to stay within 28-32F during production. Finally, we test each batch of food for Salmonella, E. Coli, and Listeria monocytogenes & swab our production area regularly for Listeria monocytogenes as well.“
If you believe your pet has been made sick by Viva Raw or any other pet food, contact your veterinarian and submit a report to the FDA HERE.
The pet community has jumped head-first into yet another social-media-fueled panic about certain pet food brands. Once again, misinformation is spreading, rampantly! The now-closed Hill’s Science Diet Recall1 for Vitamin D has been brought up by concerned pet parents and influencers as “proof” of a bigger problem, and I wanted more information.
A Facebook group, led by a pet owner who claims to have been the lead plaintiff in (and “won”) the lawsuit against Hill’s Science Diet, utilizes its platform to advocate for raw and “natural” diets for pets.
The group actively discourages members from trusting veterinarians and feeding kibble, likening it to “playing Russian Roulette with your pet“. They openly criticize brands like Hill’s, Purina, and Royal Canin, alleging they contain fillers and toxins that primarily serve the companies’ financial interests.
That was a mouthful, but it’s important in the context of this story.
This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Hill’s vitamin D recall, including the reasons behind the recall and why it may have been blown out of proportion.
Hill’s Science Diet Recall information
The Hill’s Class Action Lawsuit for Vitamin D (and how it was resolved)
How many pets were harmed by Hill’s Science Diet
How many pets died because of Hill’s Vitamin D Recall
Pet food manufacturing quality control
Background on Hill’s Pet Nutrition
Hill’s Pet Nutrition is a well-established brand known for producing premium pet foods, including heavily researched therapeutic “prescription” diets recommended by veterinarians for various health conditions. With an average 2023 revenue of over $4 Billion U.S.D., they are a major player in the pet food market.
The company invests significantly in state-of-the-art research facilities. It employs a team of veterinarians, veterinary nutritionists, and scientists dedicated to advancing the understanding of pet health and nutrition.
This cutting-edge facility spans over 80 acres and is equipped with laboratories and top-of-the-line animal housing areas where humane controlled feeding studies are conducted.
Few brands meet this commitment to research and the advancement of nutrition.
While it does elevate them above many other pet food brands, this doesn’t make Hill’s Science Diet exempt from mistakes.
The Hill’s Science Diet Recall for Vitamin D
In January 2019, Hill’s Pet Nutrition received a complaint about possible Vitamin D toxicity in a dog that had eaten Hill’s canned dog food.
Hill’s Science Diet investigated and then quickly alerted the FDA that they were issuing a voluntary recall of select canned dog foods due to elevated levels of vitamin D.
A recall was issued on January 31st, 2019.
“Following that recall, we conducted a detailed review of all canned dog foods potentially impacted by the vitamin premix with elevated levels of vitamin D. This review included: analyzing consumer complaints; reviewing veterinarian medical consultations; auditing our supplier; and reviewing our own manufacturing and quality procedures. We then did additional product testing to ensure we had taken all appropriate action.“
Hill’s indicates in their press release that a “limited number of complaints” came in. Not thousands.
Elevated levels of vitamin D2 can lead to potential health issues in pets, including symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite, increased thirst, increased urination, excessive drooling, and weight loss. In some cases, it can lead to death.
A pet’s size and overall health affect its capacity to metabolize excessive amounts of Vitamin D.
Following the initial recall, the FDA requested that Hill’s Science Diet conduct testing on their retention samples. Retention samples refer to portions of each production lot that are retained at the testing facility in the event of any potential issues arising.
“Testing leading up to the January recall and the March and May recall expansions found that samples of the dog food contained excessive, potentially toxic amounts of vitamin D.”
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
Of course, this is a scenario that should never happen, however, it did. There is no disputing that Hill’s Science Diet distributed contaminated food and that some dogs were made sick by it.
I’ll dig into that more, below.
Hill’s Science Diet Recall Timeline
Here is a timeline of events related to the vitamin D recall:
January 2019 – Hill’s Science Diet Received a report of a pet sick with possible Vitamin D toxicity
January 30th, 2019 – DSM Nutritional Products, the supplier of the vitamin pre-mix used in Hill’s Science Diet, issued a recall for the ingredient3. A single employee had included an extra drum of Vitamin D, instead of Vitamin E, into the mix.
February 1st, 2019 – The FDA started inspections of the pet food manufacturing facility.
February 2019 – A media frenzy ensued, with countless pet owners anecdotally reporting on social media that their pet had been sick from eating Hill’s Science Diet of all kinds (including kibble) up to a year prior. (This is reminiscent of the questionable 2023-2024 “Purina Panic”).
Many of these reports lacked solid evidence, as pet owners attributed various ailments without providing full context.
February 11th, 2019 – One lawsuit of many, Bone et. al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. et. al.5 1:19-cv-00831 is filed. The text of the lawsuit indicates a belief that “As a result of online consumer complaints, Hill’s thus knew or should have known of the elevated vitamin D levels in the Specialty Dog Foods by at least February of 2018.”
The lawsuit alleges that Hill’s Science Diet knowingly sold toxic food for an extended period, including dry pet foods that were not part of the recall. The plaintiffs claim their evidence for this assertion stems from anecdotal consumer reports observed on social media.
February 11th, 2019 – The FDA tested two samples of Hills Prescription Diet Digestive Care i/d Low Fat (SKU Number 10423). The results showed:
Lot code T1911124 3912 had: 100,170 to 107,282 IU/kg of vitamin D
Lot code T1911125 3912, had 102,829 to 102,346 IU/kg of vitamin D
Scientific literature suggests that concentrations exceeding 4,000 IU/kg of dry matter can induce symptoms, with higher levels correlating with more severe health problems and the potential for death.
There is no question that some pets were harmed by this.
March 20, 2019 – The recall is expanded to include additional formulas, following the testing of retention samples. Some of those formulas had not yet been distributed, and thus, posed no harm to pets.
Hill’s Science Diet states that they have “received a limited number of complaints of pet illness related to some of these products.”
May 17, 2019 – An additional lot code is added to the recall list when it was discovered to have been left off the March recall in error.
All told, one source I found indicated that 86 total lots of 33 varieties of Hill’s Canned Pet Foods were recalled.
That’s 675,000 cases—or 13.5 million cans
November 2019 – A warning letter from the FDA nailed Hill’s Science Diet for failing to follow Hazard and Risk-Analysis prevention.
“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).“
Some, but not all of the foods were part of the “prescription” line. No dry food or treats were affected.
The Hill’s Vitamin D Recall was terminated on 12/21/2021, indicating that the company had responded satisfactorily and that there was no more threat to pet health.
Hill’s Science Diet made some major errors leading up to the recall.
How Did Hill’s Science Diet End Up With Too Much Vitamin D?
The manufacturing process involves the addition of specific vitamins and minerals to ensure the nutritional balance of the pet food.
A pre-mix should contain the correct levels of each nutrient, however, in this case, something was wrong.
An Employee at DSM Nutrition Products, the maker of the vitamin package used by Hill’s Science Diet pet food, had supposedly poured a drum of Vitamin D, instead of Vitamin E, into the batch of pre-mix.
How Hill’s Science Diet specifically missed the elevated vitamin in numerous lots remains to be understood. Understandably, this has caused many pet parents and veterinarians to lose trust in the company.
Regrettably, pet owners are left to speculate, and the speculations propagated by influencers and bloggers in this field have led to significant levels of panic, fear, and misinformation regarding the topic.
Hill’s Science Diet asserts that they have revised their criteria for third-party ingredient suppliers and have enforced more rigorous testing and safety standards internally. The issue should never have happened and Hill’s Science Diet deserves some fallout from the veterinary and pet community.
As with many things like this, however, there is no proof of an ongoing, or widespread issue involving “thousands of deaths”.
How Many Pets Were Harmed by the Hill’s Vitamin D Recall?
The exact number of pets affected by the Hill’s Vitamin D recall is challenging to ascertain.
While Hill’s initially reported receiving complaints related to approximately 0.1% of their product volume, the actual number of pets harmed remains uncertain.
Pet owners across various regions reported instances of illness and, tragically, some deaths potentially linked to elevated Vitamin D levels in Hill’s pet food. Many claim, online, to have experienced harm up to a year before the recall. Certain people outright blamed any foods in Hill’s product line, including cat food and kibbles that were not part of the recall.
However, without comprehensive reporting mechanisms or centralized data collection, determining the precise extent of harm inflicted on pets is difficult.
There is no published proof that excessive levels of Vitamin D harmed or killed “thousands of pets” as is commonly reported.
Hill’s Science Diet addressed complaints and, upon receiving evidence from pet owners such as purchase receipts and veterinary records, willingly covered veterinary expenses related to any verifiable illnesses attributed to their products.
Several unverifiable online reports assert that certain individuals were “offered only $5 or $10 coupons as compensation for their pet’s demise.” It is reasonable to surmise that these individuals may have lacked evidence substantiating their assertion that Hill’s food was responsible for their pet’s health issues.
In simpler terms, there is a possibility that they attributed the issues to food not included in the recall, had no veterinary records, or their pet’s records indicated a conflicting diagnosis unrelated to the food in question. Hill’s Science Diet pet food doesn’t have a responsibility to pay veterinary bills for those people.
Author’s Note: If you suspect your pet has been made sick by food, especially if there is a recall of that food, see a veterinarian! Get a diagnosis showing that the food caused your pet’s health condition. Save the food in its original container, and report your case to both the manufacturer and the FDA.
Avoid online speculation and at-home diagnosis, as these things are hard to receive compensation for if damages are legitimately due.
Some pet owners with verifiable claims declined to receive assistance and compensation from Hill’s and instead, filed lawsuits (35 of which were combined into a single class action that resulted in a settlement. More on this below).
At its core, the class-action settlement did little more than award some lawyers a payment of cash, and worse, delayed pet owners receiving payment to cover their veterinary expenses.
What’s more, there is no proof that any of the more egregious claims made by the lawsuits (such as Hill’s “knowingly” selling contaminated food and hiding the truth from consumers) were true.
The Bone vs. Hill’s Lawsuit
As mentioned earlier, one of the plaintiffs involved in Hill’s Class Action lawsuit surrounding the vitamin D incident has become a significant influencer in the world of Holistic pet care.
Her 13-year-old dog Duncan was suffering from pancreatitis when her veterinarian recommended a Hill’s diet to help with his symptoms. Pancreatitis is a common condition with a range of causes, including poor diet, obesity, genetics, and certain medications.
The diet she fed to alleviate his pancreatitis symptoms was recalled two weeks after her dog died. Her veterinarian said that his enzymes were elevated, but not enough to kill him. Despite this, his health declined quickly and he was put to sleep. She had a very valid claim against the Hill’s food, as it likely contributed to his early death.
His owner sought a minimum of $13,500 to cover her veterinary bills and the cost of replacing him with a new service dog. I was unable to determine how much of the final settlement she received.
According to her lawsuit, which was filed jointly with two other plaintiffs who had legitimate claims against the food itself, she asserted a belief that Hill’s Science Diet was aware of the excessive vitamin D in the product and had delayed initiating a recall.
Here is an excerpt from her lawsuit against the company, outlining one of the claims for which she sought damages:
“Dogs that consumed Hill’s products which are not yet part of the recall are exhibiting symptoms of vitamin D toxicity. For example, Plaintiffs have heard complaints from a number of consumers whose dogs ate dry dog food (rather than canned dog food) sold under the Hill’s Prescription Diet and Science Diet brand names and who reported that their dogs’ symptoms are consistent with vitamin D toxicity. Thus, it appears that Hill’s has recalled only a subset of its affected Specialty Dog Foods.”
This assertion lacks concrete evidence, relying solely on unsubstantiated information gathered through social media platforms. It necessitates readers to assume that both the FDA and Hill’s Science Diet were intentionally concealing a known problem and that they didn’t investigate claims.
When you hear people say that “Hill’s dragged their feet” or “waited 6 months to recall contaminated food“, this is where that information is coming from.
However, without a court judgment, verifiable proof, or official statements from credible sources, such claims remain speculative and should be approached with caution.
The plaintiff-turned-influencer often claims to have “won her case” against Hill’s, but the truth is that her lawsuit, along with others similar to hers, were consolidated into a single case. That class-action suit (more info below) ultimately led to a settlement agreed upon by both parties, not a judgment.
Additionally, the judge ruled that her claims related to dog and cat food not covered in the settlement were excluded. She did not “win” this part of her argument.
“The cat and dry dog food-related claims included in Bone, et al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., et al., No. 19-CV-02284-JAR-TJJ, are expressly excluded from this Settlement”
That was several years ago now (2021), and there is no evidence to suggest that she has pursued these claims in a new lawsuit, let alone one with a viable argument supported by fair and verifiable evidence.
The Hill’s Class Action Settlement of $12.5 Million
Several smaller lawsuits, including Bone v. Hill’s, were combined into one class action, which led to a settlement.
A settlement in a class action lawsuit refers to an agreement reached between the parties involved in the case, typically the plaintiffs (representing a class of individuals) and the defendant (usually a company or entity). This agreement resolves the legal dispute without the need for a trial.
As outlined in this court document9, the lawsuit progressed through legal channels, eventually culminating in an agreement between the parties involved. The settlement, valued at $12.5 million, aimed to provide financial relief to affected pet owners and underscored Hill’s Pet Nutrition’s acknowledgment of its responsibility in the matter.
The settlement funds were allocated to reimburse pet owners for veterinary expenses related to the recall and to provide refunds for the purchase of the recalled products.
4 million dollars of the settlement were allocated towards legal fees and counsel.
In a settlement, all representing parties must agree to the terms.
Thus, the plaintiffs agreed to accept a $12.5 million payout to satisfy the harm done to their pets by Hill’s mistake.
While some may argue that the settlement amount is insufficient, it’s important to note that without evidence of additional harm, Hill’s couldn’t be deemed accountable.
Two members of the class action formerly objected to the settlement. One of them failed to both substantiate her claim and submit a timely objection (Swaim), while the other (Hawley) was overruled with the following commentary:
“While a class member may wish to receive an unlimited amount of money from a settlement, that wish does not make the settlement unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable.”
Anyone can make a claim or initiate a lawsuit, but only those supported by credible evidence can substantiate their case. Anecdotal online reports, lacking concrete proof, do not constitute evidence.
Purina Dog Food & Viral Social Panic
This is the same thing we are seeing play out yet again with Purina in 2023-2024. A single, since-debunked viral post of heavy metals in the food sparked a public outcry where thousands of pet owners began claiming that Purina food harmed their pets.
A considerable number of pets reportedly affected by Purina dog and cat food did not receive veterinary care, and if they did, their diagnoses were unrelated to food-related issues.
Calls for recalls and class action lawsuits gained momentum as individuals initiated these actions based on their at-home diagnoses, attributing their pets’ conditions to the food. They don’t have toxicology reports or proof of these claims, and multiple laboratory results showed that their claims were without merit.
The outcry is isolated to members of the social media group that is, of course, run by the “former Plaintiff from the Hill’s Recall that won her case“.
While we can understand and empathize with her heartache, it’s important to note that there is a lot more to this story.
Notable Vitamin D Recalls in Pet Food
Several other pet food brands have faced recalls for elevated levels of vitamin D in their products, contributing to a broader concern within the pet food industry.
Some notable brands that have issued recalls for vitamin D include:
Pet food companies have a responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of their products through rigorous testing and monitoring protocols. Vitamin D levels, like other essential nutrients, must be carefully controlled during the manufacturing process to prevent potential health risks to pets.
Some smaller pet food companies have questionable testing protocols, and may easily overlook something like this (hence the reason that “no recalls” is not always a positive thing).
For large companies that produce food for millions of pets and perform thousands of quality checks each day during production, bigger questions arise about how something like that goes overlooked.
That doesn’t make it ok, though. Call your pet food companies! Ask them what testing they do on the ingredients before, during, and after production. Find out if they manufacture their food, or outsource it to a large co-packing facility where they have less control over the final product.
Ongoing pressure from pet owners, as well as research and development efforts, can further enhance quality control measures, ensuring continuous improvement in pet food safety standards.
Was the Hill’s Vitamin D Issue Blown Out of Proportion?
While any product recall can understandably cause concern among consumers, some argue that Hill’s vitamin D recall may have been blown out of proportion for several reasons:
Limited Impact
The recall affected specific varieties of canned dog foods (around 4% of the product line), and the vast majority of Hill’s products were not implicated. There are no verifiable reports of harm from other products.
While there may have been many pets affected in some way by the excess Vitamin D, their symptoms would have resolved when they were no longer fed the contaminated food. Ideally, those pet parents submitted claims to Hill’s Science Diet or participated in the lawsuit as a means to recover their veterinary bills.
Some pets may have suffered fatalities directly linked to the contaminated canned food; however, there is no documented evidence supporting the notion of widespread harm.
While acknowledging the inexcusable nature of the deaths of those pets, it is essential to base our understanding on verifiable facts and comprehensive data rather than anecdotal reports to form a clear and accurate assessment of the overall impact of the situation.
Lack of Proof
While various claims have circulated regarding the supposed harm to pets and perceived deficiencies in Hill’s Science Diet’s management of the food recall, it’s imperative to underscore the absence of verified evidence backing the idea of widespread harm or negligence.
Many blogs and influencers have crafted a narrative that may amplify concerns, yet it’s essential to approach these accounts critically and rely on concrete evidence rather than anecdotal information.
Without substantiated facts, it’s challenging to draw definitive conclusions about the extent of harm or any alleged negligence in this matter. I encourage readers to maintain a balanced perspective and rely on credible sources for a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Proactive Measures
Rather than downplaying the issue, Hill’s did take proactive measures to address the manufacturing error and ensure the safety of pets consuming their products.
While this issue should have never happened in the first place, Hill’s Science Diet did take steps to remedy the problem and change the practices that led to it happening.
Understandably, some people may doubt the sincerity of those measures taken by Hill’s Science Diet. However, despite any skepticism, sales of Hill’s Science Diet have consistently increased each year.
This upward trend suggests that consumers and veterinarians place their trust in the brand. This continued patronage could stem from various factors, including the brand’s long-standing reputation, quality assurance measures, and effective communication efforts regarding product safety and improvements.
Ultimately, the sustained growth in sales reflects a level of confidence and satisfaction among consumers and veterinary professionals with Hill’s Science Diet products.
In my view, I would confidently choose to feed Hill’s Science Diet, particularly after the thorough research conducted for this blog post. The process revealed several misconceptions I previously held about the entire situation. I feel a sense of relief about this now, and I hope that my reporting helps others do the same.
Disclaimer: This blog post provides a general overview of Hill’s class action lawsuit and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific legal inquiries or concerns, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Footnotes
“FDA Alerts Pet Owners and Veterinarians About Potentially Toxic Levels of Vitamin D in 33 Varieties of Hill’s Canned Dog Food in Expanded Recall” ↩︎
FDA Warning Letter to Hill’s Science Diet, November 2019 ↩︎
Hill’s Science Diet Press Release “2019 Voluntary Canned Dog Food Recall: United States” ↩︎
Veterinary Information Network: “Supplier identified in Hill’s pet food vitamin D-related recalls” ↩︎
Hill’s Class Action Settlement Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ ↩︎
“Sunshine Mills, Inc. Issues Voluntary Recall of Dry Dog Food Due to Potentially Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“Nutrisca Issues Recall of Dry Dog Food Due to Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
Nutrisca “Natural Life Pet Products Expands Recall of Dry Food Due to Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“In Association With Sunshine Mills, LIDL Voluntarily Recalls Orlando Brand Grain Free Chicken & Chickpea Superfood Recipe Dog Food Due to Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“Wet Noses Natural Dog Treat Company® Voluntarily Recalls Simply Nourish Brand Frozen Dog Food Due to Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“Fromm Family Foods Voluntarily Recalls Four Star Shredded Entrée Canned Food for Dogs Due to Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“Tuffy’s Pet Foods; Inc. Issues Voluntary Recall of a Limited Quantity of Pure Vita Salmon Entrée Dog Food in a Tetrapak Carton Due to Potentially Elevated Levels of Vitamin D” ↩︎
“Nestlé Purina Petcare Company Voluntarily Recalls Purina Pro Plan Veterinary Diets El Elemental Dry Dog Food in the U.S. Due to Potentially Elevated Vitamin D” ↩︎
As someone who advocates for veterinary science and nutrition based on thorough research, I found myself drawn to the documentary “Pet Fooled,” which sets its sights on problems with the pet food industry and aims to promote the benefits of raw feeding.
In part two below, I’m digging into the pet industry as it relates to marketing, FDA regulations, AAFCO, manufacturing practices, and by-products. As always, I’m citing my sources and striving to bring you ethical, honest, and truthful information.
Note: This is a multi-part series! Additional articles in this series will be posted below.
Part One: “Biologically appropriate” feeding, bacteria & pathogens in raw food, and the influence of “big kibble” on veterinary schools (See Part One HERE)
Part Two: Pet food marketing, ingredients in pet food (including corn and by-products), manufacturing, AAFCO, and FDA regulations (See Part Two HERE)
Part Three: Pet food recalls, veterinary diets, and holistic pet food elitism (See Part Three HERE)
Pet Fooled Documentary and Pet Food Marketing
20 minutes into the film I found something I agreed with the producers on. If Pet Fooled had exclusively covered this topic and left the raw vs. kibble debate out of the equation, they would have had my vote.
Pet food marketing often utilizes visually appealing packaging and persuasive messaging to attract consumers and convey the idea that their product is the best choice for pets.
The colorful imagery of fresh meats, vibrant vegetables, and wholesome ingredients creates an impression of healthfulness and quality.
Additionally, marketing tactics such as claims of using “super-premium” or “all-natural” ingredients, endorsements by veterinarians or “pet nutritionists”, and labels indicating specific health benefits further reinforce the perception that these products are superior.
However, behind the eye-catching packaging and persuasive slogans, the actual nutritional content and quality of these pet foods may vary significantly.
This problem is not isolated to kibble brands. Fresh and raw pet food companies do it, too.
Pet Fooled raised an important concern about how marketing tactics can often confuse consumers and manipulate our emotions.
However as they had done before, they then did a swan dive into the deep end.
A montage of labels, slogans, and ingredients was presented as a means to tap into viewers’ emotions with the implication that all of those things are bad.
It doesn’t matter how much research we have out there showing us that some of those perceived ‘bad’ ingredients are beneficial, there is no middle ground on Pet Fooled.
Recall Dr. Karen Becker’s assertion in part one, where she contends that anything aside from a raw meat diet constitutes “nutritional abuse.”
Like all things in pet nutrition, this answer is not that black and white.
Pet Food Ingredients
“Pet Fooled” emphasizes the importance of reading ingredient lists on pet food labels as a means of evaluating the quality and nutritional value of the product.
However, they oversimplify the issue by implying that the presence of certain ingredients automatically makes certain pet foods inferior or harmful.
Without proper guidance from qualified professionals, solely relying on ingredient lists to choose pet food can be problematic and may result in suboptimal nutrition or even nutritional deficiencies for pets.
Without expanding so much as to bloat this article up with too much information, here are some veterinary nutritionist articles regarding commonly vilified ingredients such as corn and by-products.
Veterinary Nutritionists (who are infinitely more qualified to discuss pet nutrition than a holistic wildlife veterinarian), prioritize the final nutrient profile and bioavailability over specific ingredients.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of pet food hinges on its ability to deliver results, a complexity that far surpasses the debate between corn and organic farm-raised lentils.
Here is an informational video, from a veterinarian, regarding corn in pet food:
Replying to @misiu Corn gets a lot of ire in pet food, often mislabeled as a “filler” or something with “no nutritional value.” We know that’s not true by the nutrient profile alone. Whole corn is typically not used in kibble, so saying “my pet defecates corn” is a silly argument. If you ate pistachios in the shell vs once shelled it’s a different beast all together. Corn gluten helps to acidify the urine, which is great in our cats with crystals. Corn oil has linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid – meaning dogs and cats cannot synthesize it themselves and it MUST be added to food. Corn oil is one way to do this. Sources: Dr Avi Deshmukh, nutrient profile for corn
High Temperature Kibble Extrusion, Cancer & Pet Health
“Pet Fooled” raises concerns about the high-temperature processing methods used in the manufacturing of pet food.
The theory linking high-temperature kibble extrusion to cancer and negative impacts on pet health is largely unfounded. While some critics suggest that the heat processing methods used in kibble manufacturing could potentially create harmful compounds or degrade the nutritional value of ingredients, scientific evidence supporting these claims is limited.
The extrusion process is carefully controlled and monitored by pet food manufacturers to ensure that it meets strict quality and safety standards.
As pet owners become increasingly concerned about the processing methods used in traditional extruded kibbles, the popularity of ‘baked’ dog foods has surged as a perceived solution. However, it’s important to recognize that the baking process doesn’t necessarily eliminate concerns about high temperatures. Some ‘baked’ kibbles may be exposed to temperatures of 300-500 degrees Fahrenheit during production.
When you bake muffins in your home oven, they are subjected to higher temperatures and for longer durations than kibble, which may only be in the extruder for 30-90 seconds.
Additionally, numerous studies have found no direct causal link between consuming extruded kibble and an increased risk of cancer or other health issues in pets.
This, naturally, circles us back to the questionable marketing claims propagated by pet food companies, influencers, and pet stores. They all vie to convince us that their product reigns supreme in terms of health, safety, and innovation.
Yet, without substantiating evidence from rigorous peer-reviewed research and scientific inquiry, should we truly place our trust in those claims?
Many veterinarians agree that a balanced diet, regardless of its form, is key to maintaining optimal health in pets. Perhaps a well-formulated kibble produced under tried and true quality control protocols and manufacturing processes isn’t so bad, after all.
It’s essential to evaluate pet nutrition claims critically and rely on evidence-based research when making decisions about pet food choices.
FDA Regulations on Pet Food in Pet Fooled
When it comes to the safety and quality of our pets’ food, understanding the regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is important.
Pet Fooled slams the FDA, citing a lack of oversight leading to widespread problems with pet food safety. I’ll dig into this more below, but the narrator implies that all big pet food manufacturing is dirty and corrupt.
The documentary questions the quality of ingredients used in commercial pet foods and highlights instances where low-quality or controversial ingredients are included.
I’m glad I sat down and watched the documentary as well because the visual aspect of the film is intentionally crafted to provoke concern and emotion about pet food.
The documentary features footage of decaying carcasses, animals in ditches, roadkill, and maggots, all interwoven with a narrative that suggests these “4D Meat” elements are commonly found in our pets’ food.
Pet Fooled wants viewers to believe that manufacturers are regularly grinding up rotting dead, diseased, dying, and disabled animals to include in their formulas.
Pentobarbital (Euthanasia Drug)5 and Melamine have been the subject of major pet food recalls, there is no disputing this. These incidents originated with the suppliers and went unnoticed by the manufacturers during production. The critical oversights behind these major recalls prompted industry-wide changes.
However, there is no proof of major corruption or widespread ongoing problems. The FDA specifically prohibits contaminated meat from being used in pet food, and many pet food companies have thrown out bad batches of food and issued recalls in compliance with these regulations.
Remember, pet food companies cannot make money if they are selling us dirty food that harms our pets.
Last week I finished an article called “Are There Euthanized Animals in Pet Food” that may be of interest. While the concept of shelter pets and decayed horses being trucked to the pet food manufacturing plant is sensational, it’s a myth.
Why does Pet Fooled persist in propagating that misconception? It all boils down to financial incentives. By steering consumers away from properly formulated and safe kibble brands, they stand to gain market share for their holistic online courses, supplements, and food brands.
This is ALWAYS a hot topic when discussing pet food – recalls. Recalls are neither good nor bad, they just are. Obviously you don’t want your own food to be recalled, but brands should do quality control in order to ensure safety. No recalls does not mean a company is perfect – it can be due to a lack of an screening and underdiagnosing issues with said food. What I think is always very telling is when the FDA recommends a recall and the company refuses. This is a huge red flag as both a consumer and a veterinarian.#greenscreen
There are concerns about the lack of transparency in labeling, making it difficult for pet owners to fully understand what they are feeding their pets.
Pet Fooled is correct about this. I’ve spent hours of my life tracking down nutritional information such as calcium and copper levels or who formulates the food, things that pet owners should have easy access to.
It’s shocking how many companies simply cannot, or will not provide that information.
Many others will use slick language to gloss over their responses to WSAVA guidelines7 for manufacturing and formulation processes.
Having investigated well over 400 companies at this point, I can definitively say that it’s the smaller companies who are the least transparent. To give just a few examples, Diamond, Victor, AllProvide, Darwin, and Inukshuck have all been very difficult to get real answers from.
Meanwhile, Purina, Hill’s, Royal Canin, and some other big players have been open, honest, and quick to respond with verifiable answers.
A call for transparency requires that ALL pet food manufacturers provide nutrient, sourcing, and manufacturing information on request, to anybody who asks, and without fluffing up their answer to hide the truth. That’s something I can get behind.
Nutritional Adequacy in Pet Foods
Pet Fooled also addresses the issue of nutritional adequacy in pet foods, emphasizing the importance of balanced diets for pets’ health and well-being.
Many raw pet food brands, which are championed by the holistic veterinarians featured in the film, do not test for or publish their nutrient levels. I find this to be quite ironic.
AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) is not a regulatory agency. Instead, it is an organization that establishes guidelines and standards for pet food and animal feed. While AAFCO develops nutritional profiles, labeling requirements, and ingredient definitions, it does not have regulatory authority to enforce these standards. Regulatory enforcement is typically the responsibility of state departments of agriculture, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and other governmental agencies.
The documentary questions the adequacy of AAFCO’s standards in ensuring that pet foods meet the nutritional needs of pets. It suggests that while AAFCO sets minimum standards for pet food ingredients and labeling, these standards may not always reflect the best nutritional practices for pets.
Additionally, “Pet Fooled” raises concerns about the reliance on feeding trials and laboratory testing to determine nutritional adequacy, suggesting that these methods may not always accurately represent real-life feeding conditions for pets.
Could feeding trials be better? Possibly! Is that an excuse for pet food companies to not do them at all? Nope.
Part three is next!
Note: This is a multi-part series! Additional articles in this series will be posted below.
Part One: “Biologically appropriate” feeding, bacteria & pathogens in raw food, and the influence of “big kibble” on veterinary schools (See Part One HERE)
Part Two: Pet food marketing, ingredients in pet food (including corn and by-products), manufacturing, AAFCO, and FDA regulations (See Part Two HERE)
Part Three: Pet food recalls, veterinary diets, and holistic pet food elitism (See Part Three HERE)
Victor dog food is a popular option for Great Danes. This week, pet owners across the nation have been shaken by the alarming news of an unprecedented recall involving ALL Victor dog food. The Victor Dog Food recall (2023) affects all formulas with an expiration date before 10/31/24.
The massive nature of the current Victor recall underscores the critical importance of scrutinizing the quality and safety of pet food products, as well as the manufacturing practices of the companies we give our money (and trust to).
As details emerge about the specific reasons behind the Victor recall and the potential risks posed to dogs, we will update this post. In the meanwhile, if you feed Victor foods to your Dane, you must immediately stop. Read on for more information.
Victor Dog Food Recall 2023 Details
Here is what we know about the current Victor food recall:
ALL formulas are affected. If you have Victor in your home that was purchased before November 2023, it’s recalled.
The food may be contaminated with salmonella, which is a bacteria that can lead to symptoms such as diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps in humans and animals. In some cases, it can lead to death.
7 human cases of salmonella poisoning have been attributed to Victor Foods, going back as far as January 2023. 6 of those cases are infants.
There are likely many more cases that have not yet been documented
The problem was initially discovered by a random 3rd party test of Victor Hi-Pro Plus that was purchased at a store
There is also a timeline associated with this pet food recall which gives us some valuable (and scary) insight.
Victor brand has “No Recalls” Victor prides itself on having had ‘no recalls’. Enthusiasts of the brand promote this as a badge of honor, not realizing that the company had been selling contaminated food for at least 10 months.
Victor Hi-Pro Plus RecallSeptember 3rd, 2023 The South Carolina Department of Agriculture tests a sample from a random bag of Hi-Pro Plus purchased at a pet store. It tests positive for Salmonella, prompting the first recall which included 644 cases sold in 5-pound bags with lot code 1000016385 and a Best By Date of 4/30/2024(See more here)
Victor Beef & Rice RecallOctober 30th, 2023 3rd party sampling was done again, and 3 lots of Beef & Rice were found to be contaminated with Salmonella. Victor Beef & Rice formulas in 5, 15, and 40 lbs bags with an expiration 06/12/2024 were recalled. (See more here).
Victor Expands the Recall to EverythingNovember 9th, 2023 Days after the Beef & Rice Recall, Victor expanded the recall to include all foods with expiration dates before 10/31/2024. This includes all Victor foods manufactured at the Mid-America pet food plant in Mt. Pleasant, Texas, and formulas from Wayne Feeds, Eagle Mountain, and Members Mark (which are also manufactured by the facility. (See more here). If the bag says Victor, it’s been recalled.
The FDA Releases an Advisory about the Victor RecallNovember 9th, 2023 The FDA created a page in collaboration with the CDC with information about the Mid America Victor Pet Food recall that includes more detailed information about documented illnesses, procedures, recommendations, and the timeline of reported illnesses. (See more here).
Can a Dog Eat Victor Recalled Food?
The FDA, the CDC, and the authors of this blog recommend that Victor Dog Food be destroyed so that no humans or animals can touch or eat it.
Even if your dog seems to have no ill effects, a pet with salmonella in their gut can shed the bacteria in their feces. Additionally, food bowls, your pets eating area, and their saliva may be contaminated and contribute to the spread.
In other words, if your dog is eating salmonella contaminated food and then gives you kisses, you could become sick.
While many people can get over salmonella poisoning at home with a few uncomfortable trips to the toilet, many others end up in the hospital. The CDC considers a salmonella outbreak to be a serious event.
If you have an immunocompromised person, infant, or elderly person in your home it is especially important that you take precautions with food that may be contaminated with salmonella.
We recommend a cold-turkey switch to a brand that meets WSAVA guidelines (more on this below).
If My Dog is Not Sick, Can They Keep Eating Victor?
No.
Many dogs do not show symptoms of Salmonella poisoning (though some do), even if they are actively carrying and shedding the bacteria from their stools and saliva.
Even if your pet seems to be “just fine” eating the Victor dog food in your pantry, it is recommended that you immediately switch.
There is also an ethical dilemma at play if you continue to feed Victor food despite the current recall. We must hold Victor accountable for their poor quality control. By seeking a refund for the potentially contaminated food that you purchased, Victor bears the financial burden of the mistake (as they should).
Additionally, if your pet is shedding salmonella while out and about they could make others sick. This could result from them visiting with kids, going to the nursing home as a therapy dog, pooping in public areas (even if you scoop it up), and other normal activities.
What are the Signs of Salmonella Poisoning
Both dogs and humans can become sick from Salmonella. Now that the Victor recall has been posted, MANY people are realizing that they or their pet had been made ill with food poisoning at some point in 2023, but never considered that it could have been because of their pet’s food.
The symptoms of salmonella poisoning in dogs and humans are very similar:
Nausea (May result in pets turning their nose up at Victor Food)
Diarrhea
Blood in Stool
Vomiting
Lethargy or Low Energy
Fever
Abdominal Cramps
Salmonella infection can also lead to heart problems, eye problems, arthritis, muscle pain, and urinary tract symptoms.
If you or your pet have had these symptoms, and your pet was eating Victor food (or one of the other brands included in the current expanded recall), you are encouraged to report it to your veterinarian, your doctor, and the FDA.
Salmonella is not destroyed by freezing temperatures.
Killing or eliminating Salmonella involves thorough cooking of contaminated food items. Cooking your pets kibble to destroy any potential salmonella contamination is not recommended, however, as this may alter the nutritional balance of the food.
Practicing good hygiene by washing hands thoroughly with soap and water after handling Victor kibble or coming into contact with potentially contaminated surfaces is essential. After you dispose of your Victor food, thoroughly wash and sanitize the feeding area, scoops, and bowls.
If you use a pet food storage container, it must also be thoroughly sanitized.
Unfortunately, dish soap doesn’t kill bacteria; so depending on how thoroughly you wash something, it may still require sanitization. If your dishwasher has such a cycle, we recommend using it!
If you have been affected by the Mid America Victor food recall and need alternative foods, we recommend sticking to brands that meet WSAVA guidelines and thus, have exceptional quality control practices.
Pet food manufacturers that meet WSAVA recommendations have transparency in pet food labeling, exceptional quality control, and highly qualified nutritionists involved with the formulation of the food.
Here is our list of pet foods that meet WSAVA recommendations, are ideal for large & giant breed dogs, and provide a veterinary-approved alternative to Victor pet foods. If you are shopping for a small or senior dog, choose a comparable formula from the same company:
Check out THE GIANT DOG FOOD PROJECT to compare brands and values.
If you are looking to stay away from the “Big 5” for some reason (though, we urge you to reconsider), other brands that are close contenders include grain-inclusive Farmina, Annamaet, and Instinct Kibbles.
How to Switch from Victor to Another Brand
It is important that you immediately stop feeding Victor altogether. We recognize that this can be upsetting for pet owners that feel their pet has done well on Victor food. However, there are many alternatives out there and switching quickly is important!
Once you have chosen a food, thoroughly sanitize your pets eating area and then offer a SMALL meal of the new food.
Instead of offering two meals, offer 3-4. Split the food up over the course of the day.
Additionally, for the first few days, reduce the overall amount that you offer! Many pets want to gorge on new food because it’s novel and interesting; do NOT allow this unless you want a yard full of poop!
Check the feeding recommendations on the bag, too. Chances are, you can feed LESS food if you choose a brand like Purina Pro Plan, Royal Canin, or Hill’s! Overfeeding is a COMMON cause of loose stools and the nutritional values will likely be different on a new food that you choose.
We recommend shopping at Petsmart or Chewy, and choosing autoship to save money and time. If your pup has digestive upset for more than a few days, see your veterinarian!
Victor Pet Food Quality Control & Recalls
It’s crucial to understand that recalls aren’t inherently negative. Some companies promptly issue small recalls as a testament to their commitment to prioritizing pet health over marketing and profits.
However, the magnitude and context of the recall involving Victor pet foods serve as a clear example of a problematic recall, prompting a reassessment of our perception of the brand.
Many people have rewarded Victor for having had “no recalls” in the past.
We can now clearly see that this was misguided, as the current recall shows a problematic issue with quality control.
The reality is that a company boasting “no recalls” may simply be overlooking (or worse, ignoring) potential issues.
Pet food manufacturers should prioritize routine and thorough equipment sanitization, along with batch testing, to virtually eliminate the risk of pathogens like aflatoxins, salmonella, and E. coli in their products.
The salmonella contamination in Mid America Pet food was caught twice by 3rd party testing, not the company itself. This is a glaring indication that a crucial step was missed.
Salmonella poisoning cases associated with this outbreak date back into January, 9 months prior to the first recall. This is an indication that contaminated food has been on store shelves for the better part of a year. For many pet owners, this has explained a lot of problematic symptoms they had seen in their pets for the last several months.
A quick search through many Facebook dog groups indicates that many pets have actually been sick. It took a massive recall for people to figure out why.
How has Mid America Pet Foods Responded to the Recall?
Unfortunately, Mid America (the makers of Victor foods, as well as the manufacturing plant for Eagle Pack, Wayne Feeds, and Member’s Mark which were also recalled) has had a questionable response to the recall.
Numerous pet owners mention enduring lengthy waits on hold, spending hours waiting to connect with a representative only to be told that “Victor cares”.
Other individuals have surfaced, expressing concerns about Victor pet food causing illness in their pets before the recall. After reaching out to Victor about this, these owners consistently cite that the company failed to acknowledge any responsibility for the reported issues.
Worse, Victor representatives are telling some people that the salmonella recall was done out of “an abundance of caution” and that the Beef & Rice formula is truly the only affected one.
Given that the problem was found twice by a 3rd party test, and that salmonella is easily spread when food is exposed to contaminated manufacturing equipment, I’m not inclined to buy into their desperate plea to brush this off as “no big deal”.
The designation of a recall as “voluntary” does not necessarily imply that it was initiated solely at the company’s discretion.
Rather, it indicates that the company took the proactive step of reaching out to suppliers and informing consumers. This designation does not rule out the possibility that the FDA exerted pressure, or that the company could have faced regulatory action if it had not taken this initiative.
In cases where companies are under serious scrutiny from the FDA and CDC (as is the case with Mid America Food at the moment), opting for a “voluntary recall” notice can be viewed as a strategic marketing move to stay ahead of potential regulatory actions.
Does Victor Dog Food Meet WSAVA Guidelines?
The solid majority of veterinarians, who see 100’s of pets each week and share advice passed down to them from board certified veterinary nutritionists will recommend foods that meet WSAVA guidelines. These foods include brands such as Purina, Iam’s, Eukanuba, Hill’s, and Royal Canin.
Victor foods do not, and have never come even close to meeting WSAVA manufacturing and formulation recommendations. Here is a simple list of reasons why they do not adhere to basic ethics:
Victor foods does NOT have a qualified nutritionist on staff. Their ‘head chef’ has a science degree and an online certificate in companion animals from a farm animal organization.
Victor foods do not perform feeding trials or contribute to research with peer-reviewed science
Victor foods does not easily provide nutritional values on request: when we inquired about their calcium levels, we were told they would only speak on the phone (not in writing). They only publish their calcium levels on select bags and they do not share a guaranteed analysis of calcium, leaving owners to dig for this very important information.
Victor does not have good sanitation protocols and does not perform regular bacteriology screenings on their foods (an observation implied by the evidence, which indicates that they have been selling salmonella contaminated food since at least January, 2023.
There is a reason that veterinarians always recommend that pet owners look past pet food marketing and instead, into the companies dedication to animal health, formulation, and quality control.
Victor Pet Foods for Puppies
We do not recommend Victor pet foods for puppies, as the calcium levels are too high to be safe for growing large and giant breed dogs.
Dog food recalls are a scary business for pet parents. In 2023, Victor Pet Foods issued a massive recall of all formulas in their line because of salmonella contamination. As the details emerged, we learned that they had been selling contaminated food for nearly a year (if not longer). Before that recall, Purina voluntarily recalled a small selection of veterinary food (“Elemental EL” to treat allergies) from the shelf after receiving two reports of dogs who got ill (both dogs are fine now).
Recalls simply mean that a product is being removed from store shelves and distribution channels. Most times, consumers who purchased the product before the recall can request an exchange or refund.
The 2022 Purina Recall is a great example of a recall that was done by the company out of an abundance of caution. They issued this recall even though numerous bloggers, influencers, and pet owners would present the issue as a source of panic and fear.
Are Dog Food Recalls Bad?
Marketing has taught us to believe that recalls are a bad thing, or that recalls indicate that a company is not honest, truthful, or diligent.
Many people reward pet food companies with no recall history, not realizing how nuanced this topic is.
Of course, sometimes recalls are indicative of a much bigger problem. There are times when a company has been negligent or has poor quality control practices. (Victor, we’re looking at you!). If a company is particularly resistant to recalling a product, the FDA can require them to do so.
Recalls can be an indication that a company is doing the right thing, too.
Most of the time, recalls are done for very good reasons. There are numerous reasons for recalls, and many times, it’s actually related to a supplier, not the company that manufactured the product.
Dog Food Companies With No Recalls
Unfortunately, the negative feelings generated about dog food recalls tend to make the idea of “no recalls” appealing.
Having “no recalls” is a major reason that dog owners are drawn to certain brands. All of the largest brands (Purina, Royal Canin, Hill’s) have had recalls. These are mega-billion dollar (yes, billion) companies that feed a lot of dogs.
Having no recalls is a red flag.
Here is a list of reasons why a dog food company with no recalls can be a red flag:
#1 – Small Market Share
A company with a small market share (compared to a large company such as Purina, for example) has millions fewer dogs eating their food. If an issue comes up that could justify a recall, it’s much easier to sweep it under the rug instead.
#2 – Recalls are Bad for Marketing
For companies that actively market their history of “no recalls”, it can be an exceptionally tough pill to swallow if they do run into issues in the future. This can make a smaller company with a small market share more likely to avoid recalling something that it really should.
#3 – Financial Instability & Small Dog Food Companies
A smaller company with no recalls is also less likely to have the financial resources to accept the hit that comes to the bottom line. Not only are recalls bad for their public image but recalls can be devastating to their profits.
When we as consumers applaud companies with no recalls, and avoid companies with recalls, we incentivize companies to keep potentially dangerous products on the shelves.
Dog Food Company Recall Issues
Here are some recall issues that have popped up in the past, from companies who denied doing a recall (because remember, recalls are bad for the public perception of the brand). Notice the blatant disregard for the pet owners, and for the pets they are feeding.
Champion Pet Foods (Orijen & Acana)
This company has had multiple issues that should have warranted a recall out of caution, however, none were issued.
In 2003, some of their products may have been contaminated by cows that had mad cow disease. Champion knew it was a potential problem and indicated that they were willing to offer refunds for concerned pet owners, but no recall was issued.
In 2018, a supplier delivered beef tallow that was contaminated with Phenobarbital (a euthanasia drug). Champion Pet Foods used the contaminated tallow in production and many bags of food were distributed to suppliers. Once the FDA stepped in, the company retrieved unsold products but did not issue a recall for food that had already been sold.
Champion (Acana / Orijen) did not recall food that was potentially contaminated with Phenobarbital.
In 2019, the FDA released statements about a potential link between grain-free pet foods and the development of deadly nutritional DCM.(Since this time, many studies have shown a link between excessive use of peas, lentils, potatoes, and legumes and dogs developing heart conditions; these ingredients are common in grain-free foods).
Champion Pet Foods, despite being implicated many times in early confirmed and ongoing reports, and despite making certain formulas that are loaded with suspect ingredients (lentils and peas) did not recall their grain-free foods. To this day they continue to deny any link.
Victor Pet Foods
Victor Foods prides itself on never having had a recall, and it’s a major reason many people choose the brand.
However, Victor has been implicated many times by pet owners and even veterinarians for dogs becoming sick on their formulas. Nutritional DCM reports have been confirmed (see THIS group for more information) and a lot of reproductive veterinarians will tell you that breeding issues are common for dogs fed Victor.
Of course, they did end up issuing a massive recall in 2023 that prompted many of us to dig deeper into their practices. Turns out that Victor has been selling contaminated food for months; they were not testing their products for salmonella.
Darwin’s Raw Pet Food
In 2019, several kinds of Darwin’s Raw Pet food were found to be contaminated with salmonella. This is an unfortunately common problem with raw dog food in particular, and Darwin’s is not the only one to face pushback from the FDA regarding their practices.
As we see above, some companies don’t recall things that should be recalled. This is a common practice with many stories we will never hear about (because it’s easy to hide small mistakes).
Other companies recall things where the fact that there was an issue in the first place is alarming. Let’s dig into this:
Midwestern Pet Foods (Sportmix, Wholesomes, Earthborn Holistic, Pro Pac)
Midwestern Pet Foods was found to have serious issues with its manufacturing facilities, indicating poor overall quality control and testing practices.
Many formulas were recalled because of salmonella and aflatoxins (both are deadly and yes, many dogs died).
This is a good example of a brand where recalls are an indication of bad practices, and should be a clear red flag to pet owners that it may be best to avoid this brand altogether.
Knowing that Midwestern Pet Foods had seriously nasty production practices in the first place should be alarming to all pet owners.
Hill’s Science Diet Prescription Vitamin D Recall
Like many brands (including Fromm and Purina), Hill’s has had to issue a recall regarding vitamin D levels in certain formulas of their foods.
Purina issued its recall in 2022 after just two dogs turned up sick; the recall was voluntary and initiated by the company out of an abundance of caution.
In the case of Hill’s, it was determined that they did NOT test their vitamin pre-mix before using it in the product. For a smaller company, this wouldn’t have likely been a huge deal. For a large company like Hill’s, many dogs were made ill by this oversight.
This is an issue and Hill’s has been held accountable for it. It’s not a mistake that they are likely to make again and while we still recommend Hill’s, if you feel uncomfortable feeding it that’s understandable.
Critical Thinking & Educated Consumerism
This of course brings up the discussion about being an educated consumer and using critical thinking skills to make decisions.
Recalls save lives. In a perfect world, no dog food company would ever need to recall something. But it’s bound to happen, especially for companies producing food at a large scale.
Some recalls are damaging and very alarming.
Some recalls are helpful and done with safety and ethics in mind.
Some recalls are potentially damaging, and the company learns from them.
Some recalls that should happen, never do.
It’s important to be alarmed for the right reasons.
The 2022 Purina Vitamin D recall has generated more social media attention than almost any other in recent history. It’s a small recall related to just one product line, with no deaths or serious damage. In the history of recalls, especially among recalls that have caused death and damage, this should be a blip on the radar.
To put this into perspective, Fromm Foods had a vitamin D recall in 2021…I bet you never even heard of it. There are very recent recalls as we speak from Fresh Pet and Primal Pet Foods as well.
Despite this, bloggers, influencers, and pet owners are out in force with inflammatory headlines:
“Purina has TOXIC ingredients”
“Purina recall indicates deadly food!”
“Dogs Sick from Purina Food”
“Toxicity in Purina Foods”
These kinds of misleading statements drive distrust for Purina and lead uneducated consumers to believe that all Purina foods have been recalled and that Purina itself is a bad company.
Many of the same people who make these statements give a pass to Champion, Midwestern, Mid-America(Victor), and Darwin, even though their recalls (or lack thereof) are infinitely more dangerous and unethical.
How to Choose a Pet Food Company
It’s no surprise that choosing a pet food company is hard; there are thousands of brands on the market, all with fancy labels vying for your attention.
There are many ways to choose pet food, and some of the most popular ideas are actually among the worst reasons!
Here is a list of things that many people prioritize when choosing a pet food, not realizing that they may be being misled:
The ingredients list (which is easy to build around consumer tastes, not necessarily quality nutrition)
The recalls list or lack of recalls (the whole point of this post)
Unregulated marketing terms such as holistic, super-premium, or biologically appropriate
Higher price point (which may mean nothing at all in terms of nutrition and quality)
False claims about the food preventing or treating certain conditions such as cancer
Pet store employees, influencers, and poorly qualified “canine nutritionists” who promote certain products as healthier or higher quality
Are you falling subject to any of those common practices above? Take a step back and evaluate the credentials and qualifications of the people you source nutrition information from. Most nutritional information fed to us by pet stores, influencers, and food brands is nothing more than marketing.
