Skip to main content

Some Answers to two Pentobarbital Recalls

Related News


  1. Reader

    No where else will you find such a thorough explanation on the status of this investigation. It takes Susan a countless number of hours (days) to research and present these messages!

    Thank you, Susan so much for your incredibly hard work!

    1. Jeri

      I was about to post the same thing. Thank you, Susan! Your VERY thorough explanations leave nothing to be desired. Evanger’s may not have crossed all their “T”s or dotted all their “I”s, but you sure did! We are blessed to have you working on our behalf.

    2. jodi cohen

      Couldn’t agree more – thank you for all your work, Susan!!

  2. Bethany

    Yes, thank you Susan for all your work and dedication! You are an invaluable resource for both consumers and their companion animals.

    It seems like other pet food manufacturers can have similarly tainted beef in their pet food and not know it. I reached out to Pure Bites regarding their beef treats but got the usual song and dance from a sales and marketing representative. I want an answer from those in the know. This is so worrisome since it is not being addressed at the source and can easily happen again.

    1. Sara

      Hi Bethany.

      I feed Pure Bites treats and am not worried after reading your comment. Is there a recall or known health issue?

      Thanks in advance.

  3. Marley Rowelyn

    This information needs to be widely circulated among the pet-parent community.

  4. Boyhous

    Agree. THANK YOU Susan for all that you do!

  5. MrsK

    Yes thank you for posting that. I will be following this to see if the “interesting” people post like they did the last time. Keep up the good work you are doing.

  6. Susan DeLeon

    Not all Evangers have the curved line. Our store still has evangers in 6 oz cans of several flavors (supplemental feeding) and they all have a straight line on the bottom of the cans.

    1. Woofielover

      That’s because they stamp their large cans in a roller. Smaller volume cans are produced differently. Usually, it’s safest to look at what they produce in large cans and automatically stay away from their smaller cans too.

      1. Peter

        5.5 oz cans of certain Wild Calling brand cat foods have the curved date stamp. I have cans bearing a Sept. 2019 BBD, so they are very recently produced.

        1. Woofielover

          Good to know, I’ve not seen the circular stamp on small cans before. If they were one of the 3 “exotics”, WC was still having those made at Evanger’s until Feb. Most cans have a 2 year best by/expiry date.

          1. Peter

            On the WC website, the company trumpets that they are a “Wildly Different!” company, but they aren’t, they just use co-packers like every other pet food business. We really can’t even use the word “manufacturer” any longer because it has lost its meaning. WC claims that “we took our time with the formulations to make sure we got it right. After all, we’re not just tossing out some product to make money” and “…plain and simple. We do what we want, the way we want…” But as a consumer, I’d suggest that simply contracting out to a business like the Sher’s is enough to convince me to avoid their products entirely. Their decision has led me directly to lose faith in WC, just as any other brands that would do business with Evanger’s. It just demonstrates a lack of oversight that is not excusable on any level.

          2. Woofielover

            Peter, the reality is that almost no pet food company owns their own cannery. its ridiculously expensive so usually it’s only Big Pet Food that owns their own. A couple years ago, Fromm bought a local green bean cannery to convert to be able to control the production of their own cans. It’s pretty standard in the industry and the human food industry as well. Lots of Big Label canneries do copacking for other smaller companies in human food as well.

  7. T Allen

    “Some meat for pet food is processed after hours – after the USDA inspector has left the building. This meat comes from a USDA inspected facility, but the meat itself is not USDA inspected and approved. The meat processed after the USDA inspector left the facility could be sourced from healthy slaughtered animals or it could be sourced from animals that were rejected for use in human food.” That is absolutely what happens (although it’s unlikely healthy animals are slaughtered for pet food) and the only thing missing is that rejected products from the USDA inspection process, meaning diseased, contaminated animals and parts, will be utilized by the after hours operations for pet food.

    1. Reader

      Well I think you meant to say …. “and the only thing missing (in terms of prevention) is that rejected products from the USDA inspection process, meaning diseased, contaminated animals and parts WON’T be utilized by the after hours operations for pet food.” Meaning there is nothing to prevent the use of that rejected material for the purpose of PF.

      For long time Followers of TAPF (and the PF issue) this is probably the most profound statement to be made in a very long time! I suggest everyone read it again. How else does sub-standard protein get into PF, to create, as Anthony Hepton has studied …endotoxins in canned PF?

  8. Naomi

    “Well FDA…you can’t make that claim anymore. Now you are aware of an instance of disease and serious hazard (the death of a little dog named Talula) from canned tissues of animals that died otherwise than by slaughter.” Sorry no proof has been provided to support that Talula died ” from canned tissues of animals that died otherwise than by slaughter”, rather it has been reported it died from aspiration pneumonia, with no relationship to the food specifically. The stomach also contained kibble and carrots, which are not found in the canned product. Until the owner releases the medical treatment reports, you have provided no definitive proof as to the cause of death.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      I simply do not understand how anyone could be so naive. Your allegiance to a pet food company that testing has confirmed the presence of pentobarbital in is astounding. The FDA has the definitive proof. There would not have been a recall (two recalls) without it.

    2. Reader

      Wait a minute. You’re criticizing an article said to be without merit, yet without submitting facts to the contrary. Before going forward, obtain the official medical report of what led to the dog’s cause of death. Plus reports on the other 3 dogs that didn’t die.

      What’s side tracking your thinking, are social media comments, but with no basis. The suggestion is that “other” food in the dog’s stomach might’ve been responsible. Even if that is the assumption, why would it be any less significant? Meaning the entire point is being missed. Surely if Evanger’s required the same kind of assurance for itself (to disprove responsibility) they would’ve accessed the complete analysis from official sources. [ Think about it ].

      By the way, Susan isn’t responsible for providing “you” or anyone else “proof” of anything. That the Company’s job. That’s the FDA’s job. Which I suggest you contact directly. The same agency Susan consults before writing her articles. [ This is far from her first Rodeo! ]

      The statement you quote is a true one. Certainly a “hazard” at the very least, but food making 4 dogs sick. It is a statement to which the FDA is ….and has been …. due to Compliance policies… already well aware of, regarding PF containing protein obtained other than by slaughter. The latest case is simply an instance of that, which has now become publicized. Through a series of proper steps all taken. It’s turned into a revelation, new better positioned, to make the original point in the first place.

      With a total lack of sympathy for the dog’s family, I suggest spending as much time as has been spent on social media, obtaining all the facts required (in your mind) from objective third party and relevant sources. THAT would be energy well spent. Instead of feeding off of useless rumors.

    3. Woofielover

      Why would ANY pet parent defend or subscribe such staunch allegiance to any manufacturer? Your allegiance should be to your animal. Period. Why risk it? Why take a chance or give the benefit of the doubt? One only need look at the vast history of issues, lies, guilt and wrong-doing that has been repeatedly practiced by this manufacturer and which has been documented and is public information. Regardless, even if you loved the food, the company or were related to the owners, the information provided should give you pause to reconsider that allegiance, especially if you’re a pet parent. The proof falls upon them to prove it ISN’T true.

      1. Woofielover

        This is reminiscent of Blue Buffalo’s problems when they got caught lying about their ingredients. They too tried to blame it on their supplier. Turns out it cost them $33million to settle with the consumers to whom they lied. Will it change anything? Yeah, sure. Blue Buffalo is building their own plant so they can keep their sources private and under their control. Maybe they need to look at Evanger’s. Both manufacturers have blamed their suppliers. Both manufacturers are at fault, no matter what. Their brand, their responsibility.

        1. Peter

          Sadly, those types of “settlements” provide little to no relief to affected consumers, and really are just an ordinary cost of business for pet food manufacturers.

      2. Jeri

        Very well stated. Today’s statement from the FDA confirms that 1) pentobarbital was found in UNOPENED cans 2) the beef was NOT USDA inspected (so much for “human grade” claims) 3) They have concerns which they did not specify in BOTH the Wheeling and Markham facilities. Evanger’s OWNS this.

  9. JRM

    “Almost 50% of dry dog food tested positive for pentobarbital “. This is astounding. A dog eating this bag of dog food day after day ingesting this drug day after day is deemed to be OK? If this one thing isn’t enough reason to stop feeding this stuff I don’t know what it will take.

  10. mickey

    How can I find out what brand of dry dog food contains pentobarbital.

    1. Pet Owner

      The point of the report was to indicate a “minimum” threshold of pentobarbital is present in kibble, as of the report. There is no “list” of PF free of it. But the better protection is to confirm ALL the protein used is only USDA Inspected and Approved (passed) for human consumption. PF fit for human consumption (via ingredients and processing facility) is a good indication. Make sure, even when speaking to these companies by phone, that they follow up their “statement of assurance” in WRITING. If there comes a time, they can be caught lying, just as Evanger’s was.

  11. seeingeye2

    What about all the other products of Evangers? Are they being recalled too?

  12. Sara

    FYI…. From email

    “Exclusive: Another recall coming soon, pet food company says

    to me
    1 hour agoDetails
    Important news from Petful (formerly Pets Adviser)
    View this email in your browser

    Another pet food recall is imminent.
    Because you signed up for recall alerts from Petful (formerly Pets Adviser), we wanted to tell you right away about a new pet food recall.

    Petful has learned that any Evanger’s pet food made with “chunk beef” will be recalled soon over concerns about potential pentobarbital. This is an extension of the previous recall announced earlier this month.

    Click over to our site to read the full details now:

    Also, in case you missed it, we published a story earlier today that discusses this pet food maker’s troubled history leading up to the shocking recall. Those troubles go back more than a decade. Pentobarbital, as you have probably heard by now, is a drug used for euthanasia — and it has no reason being in pet food.

    If you didn’t read our article earlier today, do yourself a favor and read it now. Prepare to be completely grossed out.

    Please share! Thank you.

    — From your friends at Petful”

Leave a Reply