Skip to main content

Oops…More to the Evangers Story

Related News


  1. Nina Wolf

    any verifiable information on the actual testing done on the product? Is it possible to track that down somehow?

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      I’m sure Evangers would provide their results – I doubt FDA would.

  2. Mollie Morrissette

    I got the same letter. It just looked as phony as a $3 dollar bill to me. Not only that, but I thought the timing of the letter was a bit tacky, when you consider that Mr. Sher was just busted for trying to bribe a witness in the jury trial where both Mr. & Mrs. Sher are accused of stealing over $2 million in utilities from the state of Illinois. Mr. Sher now faces three new criminal charges, including subornation of perjury, bribery and communicating with a witness, in addition to the original charge of Class 1 felony theft and money laundering. If they had any class they would hang their heads in shame, go hide under a rock, and quit tootin’ their dang horn.

  3. Pacific Sun

    The story of Evanger’s is a perfect example of certain (especially one in particular) PF companies crying foul when they feel unfairly maligned. Check out one of Susan’s previous postings (
    Unfortunately when a company like this, has quite a few “coincidental” circumstances piling up against them, this “trend” bodes disaster! So what’s the easiest thing for a company to do? Not defend itself with actual, provable facts. But instead, to lash out at those bringing the details to the attention of the public. Anyway, back to the point. Which is about a PF company “spinning” the FDA’s close out comments regarding the results of one investigation. And that’s the meat of the matter, as Susan has further pointed out here. Such a company would say they’ve been cleared of any wrongdoing and their reputation is difficult to repair. The FDA actually says, “… it appears that you have addressed the violation(s) contained in this Warning Letter. Future FDA inspections and regulatory activities will further assess the adequacy and sustainability of these corrections.” Sustainability is the key phrasing here.
    Sure enough the close out letter challenges (warns) such a company to maintain the corrections. So if a company like this has been so unfairly maligned and misjudged by their skeptical public, then why would corrections be mentioned at all?? Much less the statement that they will be monitored for ongoing compliance? If you haven’t made any errors then why would you be responsible for corrections? My guess is, my opinion only, is that a company like this, has accumulated so many enemies over time, that they are (also) a danger unto themselves. Normally it might be said that the competition is or could be out to get them. Except that no matter what happens, such a company seems to be shooting themselves in the foot! Nobody respects the failure to be transparent, deceit, arrogance, the state of a physical plant, allegedly shortchanging employees, or any and all activities that have (at this point) put the safety and quality of the PF itself in jeopardy. That is, if the safety, accuracy of the products, and the quality ever existed in the first place! In fact, at this point with so many factors running contrary to reviving success, I would be afraid for the internal security of this type of company’s, entire operation

  4. Ellie

    I would say the company out right lied about the entire circumstance in their letter. Very bad.

  5. Riva

    With horrors I have just read the Press Release from Holly Sher and It is very clear in the FDA letter that Evanger’s was not cleared. I am amazed at the statement which clearly misstated the FDA letter. There is an inherent danger in doing this, in that it will assuredly open up more actions when the FDA becomes aware of this, if nothing else a close examination of Evangers. In addition- the false statement contained is a deliberate intent on the part of Holly Sher to mislead. As you know, misrepresentation of a Federal Agency statement is a very serious action. It also goes to show intent to deceive or mislead and shows the extent that Shers will go. It is not enough that the previous charges are serious (and are adding up) but it shows a pattern of intent to mislead whether it is a pet food distributor or the buying public. Intent is the clear basis for prosecution under the law and this is an example of this if there ever was. What will the Shers do next? The prosecutors are lining up and the U.S. Attorney will be next with this recent development (if they are not already in.)

  6. Dawn

    How can anyone TRUST this company? One scandal after another. We are pulling the line from our shelves.

  7. Shawn Margolus

    Im curious to see how this close out letter is a bad thing that basically stating that the company is now in good standing.

    1. Ellie

      The company totally misrepresented what the FDA’s original charges were as well as what the investigation included. It then when on to claim that the FDA had found them clear on all charges which is not true at all either.

  8. Riva

    In reading the articles about the pet food recalls, I can only say that the ramifications of the problems will last for years to come,not just the legal issues and responsibilities of the sellers, but the effect on pets and their owners will last for years to come.It is unconscionable that Distributors & Retail Stores knowingly sold these products and support a pattern of looking the other way, and they are complicit in any harm to the pets themselves, which are often forgotten when issues like these arise,and the long term effect on the owners even as far as the owners’ health is concerned, not just the pet that is affected, also.
    It is a sad commentary on today’s society when these type of things become known and there is not more of a public outcry.Very sad. Perhaps when legal suits are filed against a Distributor and the Retail Store for selling a Brand that continues to place our pets life in jeopardy we will then see improvements. Customers who purchase petfood from Krogers are finally filing lawsuits. Distributors continue to support Diamond, Evangers, Purina, P&G, and more and until they are held liable- nothing will ever change.

    1. Ellie

      This information rarely reaches the eyes of the typical consumer. Our media controls what stories are on page one as well as what ends up on page 101 or never makes it to print at all.
      Sadly, media thrives off of money provided by the pet food industry as well as the human food industry. They rarely bite the hand that feeds them.

Leave a Reply