Maryland Department of Agriculture issued a “Stop Sale Order” on Stella & Chewy’s pet food recently. What is a stop sale order and why haven’t consumers heard of other stop sale orders of pet food? Lack of regulatory consistency, that’s why.
Consumers are not provided with much information to all the ins and outs of the pet food regulatory system. FDA and State Department of Agricultures representatives tends to go about their business regulating pet food without disclosing to the consumer what they are doing to protect our pets. Besides lack of transparency, another concern of regulatory oversight of pet food is consistency. Are authorities consistently enforcing pet food regulations; enforcing regulations consistently with all pet food manufacturers?
The perfect example of inconsistency is the recent ‘stop sale order’ press release issued by Maryland Department of Agriculture regarding Stella and Chewy’s pet food.
Before I go on, try a little experiment. Type in the search box on your computer “stop sale order pet food”. Your search will only find one particular stop sale order of pet food – the recent Stella and Chewy’s stop sale order issued by Maryland Department of Agriculture. You’ll find that stop sale order mentioned on hundreds of websites – but you won’t find any other stop sale order of any other pet food. One more search, this time try searching for your particular state – as example I searched “Florida Department of Agriculture stop sale order pet food”. Nothing. Search several state names. Search using the name of any pet food you know was recalled (example: Dogswell Nutrisca Pet Food stop sale order). I did, and I found no other stop sale orders for any other pet food.
What is a stop sale order? Stop sale orders can be issued by FDA and any State Department of Agriculture for a multitude of reasons. Stop sale orders are meant to ‘stop’ a product from being sold, but they are not always issued for serious reasons (such as bacteria found in a pet food). Stop sale orders are commonly issued by pet food regulatory authorities, though rarely made public.
Stop sale orders can be issued because a State Department of Agriculture representative doesn’t agree with words or graphics on a pet food/treat label. The company is ordered to stop selling the particular product until the ‘error’ on the label is corrected. It can be something as simple as font size on the label (I’m not kidding). Stop sale orders can be issued because a pet food/treat company has not paid their yearly fees to a particular State Department of Agriculture. In this case all products would fall under the ‘stop sale’ until the fees are paid.
And of course, stop sale orders can be issued if an adulterant – such as a dangerous bacteria – is found in a pet food. In this case, the specific goal of the stop sale is to stop other pet food consumers from purchasing the particular possible contaminated pet food until – typically – a full investigation is performed. Key words: ‘until a full investigation is performed.’
The important thing to remember is that stop sale orders are not recalls. Stop sales can be/are issued for multiple reasons including a risk – but they are not a recall. And – to my knowledge – in ALL other cases except the stop sale for Stella and Chewy’s issued by Maryland Department of Agriculture – stop sale orders for pet food are never made public. It is my understanding that Stop Sale Orders are preventative measures used by regulatory authorities until a full investigation can be performed and a recall is issued.
Again using the example of Stella and Chewy’s pet food, the stop sale order press release was issued for just one product “freeze dried chicken patties dog food”. However, the recall notice issued three days later included multiple products (18). The reason for the differences in number of products was not non-disclosure by this pet food company. The reason for the different number of products listed in the stop sale order press release and the recall press release is that no investigation had been done to determine how many products were involved when Maryland Department of Agriculture released their stop sale order to the public.
And there is another difference between the stop sale order press release and the recall press release…the stop sale order press release issued by Maryland Department of Agriculture stated the listeria found in this pet food was found by FDA testing. However the recall press release (posted on the FDA website) states that Maryland Department of Agriculture found listeria in the pet food. Who did the testing on this pet food – FDA or Maryland Department of Agriculture? We don’t don’t for certain, no authority bothered to tell us.
Consistency issues aside for the moment, what is your opinion? Should consumers be notified – as in this case with Stella and Chewy’s – of all stop sale orders issued on a pet food? Even before an investigation takes place? What about trivial things such as the wrong font size used on a pet food label that results in a stop sale? Should those stop sale orders become public information too?
And what about testing methods used to find a risky bacteria in a pet food? Those that follow this website remembers the beating we took from numerous ‘pet food experts’ and veterinarians because our consumer funded testing project did not publish testing methods (makes me wonder where those vets and experts stand on recalled pet foods testing methods). The FDA would not provide comment on our pet food test results specifically because the published results did not provide testing methods. Should testing methods used to find a risky bacteria in the pet food be released to the public? Should FDA hold themselves to the same standards they held us to (providing testing methods)?
And then there is another issue to consider, when testing for bacteria in a pet food, results can show a “presumptive positive result”. The FDA states: “A presumptive positive result, which is a preliminary result that may or may not ultimately yield a confirmed positive result (i.e., it may yield a negative result).”
As example of a presumptive positive result, the OC Raw pet food recall notice stated “This recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the Nebraska Department of Food and Agriculture which revealed a presumptive positive to Salmonella.“ Consumers were never informed if the OC Raw pet food ultimately yielded a confirmed positive result or if the pet food ultimately yielded a negative result.
What’s your opinion? Should pet food consumers be informed of the final results after a presumptive positive result is found?
Back to the Stella and Chewy’s issue, why did Maryland Department of Agriculture issue a public press release announcing a stop sale order on Stella and Chewy’s pet food?
I spoke with Maryland Department of Agriculture – they were very nice and cooperative (believe me, not all State Department of Agriculture’s are nice and cooperative – I was very appreciative they were) – and they told me “generally speaking” this was standard procedure for the agency to issue a press release on a stop sale order, an effort to protect pets from consuming a risk pet food. However, I searched the Maryland Department of Agriculture website press releases – back through January of 2014. I did not find one other stop sale press release issued.
Where are all the other stop sale order press releases? As example, where is the press release for the stop sale order of Dogswell Nutrisca pet food which was found to contain Salmonella earlier this year? Maryland Department of Agriculture or any other State Department of Agriculture never made that stop sale order public. It was certainly issued, but we never heard about it.
When FDA and any State Department of Agriculture agency does not act consistently with pet food enforcement, suspicions arise. How can consumers honestly believe that authorities are working to protect our pets if one style of enforcement is used for one pet food and another is used for the next pet food? How can consumers honestly believe that authorities are actually concerned about pet food bacteria risk to pets, when all regulatory authorities allow rendered diseased animal tissues to be recycled into pet food with no disclosure to the consumer?
And one more inconsistency…
The FDA told me the agency’s current testing effort of raw pet food, “approximately 100 samples will be collected” (approximately 100 different raw pet food products will be tested).
As comparison, I asked the FDA how many samples of kibble pet foods were tested during the agency’s testing project of 2013. I was told in the 2013 project the FDA collected “300 samples of dry pet food and pet treats”.
On the surface, it sounds as if the FDA tested significantly more dry pet foods and treats than raw. But, one needs to consider the total amount of foods in each category (raw pet food category as compared to dry pet food and treats category). Raw pet food is a tiny category compared to the category of dry pet food and treats. With this current FDA testing effort of raw pet food, we can estimate that 100 samples of raw pet food equals an estimated 20% of the entire product line of raw pet foods (estimating there are 500 different brands and varieties of raw pet food in total). So FDA is testing an estimated 20% of all raw pet foods for bacteria right now. But…in 2013, with FDA testing effort of dry pet foods and treats, we can estimate that 300 samples equals about 1% of the entire product lines of dry pet foods and treats (estimating there are 3,000 different brands and varieties of dry pet foods and treats in total). So in 2013, the FDA tested only an estimated 1% of all dry pet foods and treats for bacteria.
An estimated 20% raw pet foods compared to an estimated 1% dry pet food and treats? Where is the regulatory consistency? How can consumers be adequately protected from dangerous bacteria when only an estimated 1% of the largest category of pet food sales (dry pet food and treats) is tested for dangerous bacteria and 20% of the smallest category of pet food sales is tested for dangerous bacteria? Doesn’t it make more sense to test 20% of all of them?
Pet food consumers deserve a consistent effort from their regulatory authorities. It should not matter to regulatory officials if the pet food is raw, kibble, canned, frozen, and on and on. Test them all – consistently. Provide consumers information – consistently. What we are getting is NOT a consistent effort and it does not truly protect all pet food consumers (and all pets).
Full disclosure regarding this post: I did not speak with anyone from Stella and Chewy’s for this post. I did not speak with a second cousin of Stella and Chewy’s, not a friend, not a sales rep. This post was not written to endorse or support this pet food. It is written to disclose to consumers the inconsistencies of pet food enforcement.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 3000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2015 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Debra Reynolds
July 11, 2015 at 7:05 pm
This was a very interesting article, Thank You. I think we the consumers should have the right to know about: All questions are a YES!!
of all stop sale orders issued on a pet food? Even before an investigation takes place? What about trivial things such as the wrong font size used on a pet food label that results in a stop sale? Should those stop sale orders become public information too? final results after a presumptive positive result is found?
Batzion
July 11, 2015 at 7:47 pm
Agreed Debra.
J King
July 11, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Thank you for this information Susan. It certainly looks like procedures aren’t being applied consistently.
While I would personally like to know about all Stop Sales, the vast majority of consumers wouldn’t, and would soon tune them out because of things non-urgent things like small fonts, etc.
If I’m understanding correctly, a Stop Sale would precede a mandatory recall. But Stella and Chewys was a voluntary recall — this likely means that at the point of recall, further testing to confirm the result wasn’t done yet. As a consumer, I would like to know the results of the follow-up testing. To release Stop Sale information but not to reveal if the food was victim to a false positive is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts.
With respect to the raw food testing at 20x the rate of kibble food testing, prior evidence to support this doesn’t add up. I’ve forgotten the exact stats you quoted a week or so ago in a different article, but I recall it sounded like they’d flipped totally in the opposite direction between raw and highly processed pet foods in the two sets of testing. A total reversal like that simply should not happen. I would have to argue that it looks like *they* (the agency that did the testing or those preforming the tests on its behalf) have changed either their sampling and/or testing methods in a way that biased the results.
As for TAPF’s pet food testing, don’t know that it was up to you to publish the methods used since you likely used an accredited lab whose field it is to test foodstuffs, unless it developed new methods specifically for the TAPF analyses. I’m certain that the tests were carried out in a precise and professional way. Nay-sayers would like to latch onto some aspect of the testing they would deem inappropriate, even if it were the exact test the FDA uses. They won’t to prove the tests were wrong, they’ll only cast the seed of doubt about the project.
Pacific Sun
July 11, 2015 at 9:54 pm
This article makes the bigger point that the FDA is flipping out over the risk it determines in a raw pet food (PF) and totally ignores the inequality of ingredients going into kibble. This is further proof why the PF Consumer just wants full disclosure. Let the manufacturers make their products as is, but at least label them accurately (feed or food). Right now (and until the stop sale action is over-used for lesser infractions) a stop sale sounds worse than a recall which is already bad enough. A stop sale prohibits a sale and a recall attempts to take back what’s already reached the market. A stop sale is an absolute prevention. A recall is a hit or miss attempt to collect what’s been sold or can be sold. It is just further evidence that NO preventative testing was done in the first place on kibble.
In the case of S & C it sounds like the FDA doesn’t want to be perceived as failing to test and monitor what it characterizes as a very risky product (unlike the way they fail to test kibble because they don’t question the quality of it). Very interesting! Is the FDA trying to reclaim their reputation or just picking on a niche portion of the industry that doesn’t have the big lawyers (or lobbying) to fight back??
Robin
July 12, 2015 at 10:34 am
i have used Stella and Chewy’s food for my dog at the end of her 17 years. I was happy with this product and used it because she was old and had cancer and I did not want to expose her to harmful bacteria. I chose this raw food product because according to their web site “All product is manufactured using our patented SecureByNature® food safety process. A key feature of that process is High Pressure Processing (HPP). All Stella & Chewy’s products are cold-pressed, using water at pressure equal to that found at the bottom of the ocean (87,000 lbs. per square inch), where harmful bacteria cannot survive.
HPP inactivates pathogens and harmful bacteria without high temperatures. It remains the only recognized process to not use heat as used in pasteurization, chemicals, preservatives, or irradiation, which while effective, can also erode the flavor, texture, color, and nutrition of food.”
The package does say to handle it like raw food and always wash your hands after handling it. You need to break their patties up as they are compressed by the process that kills bacteria.
While they may be finding small amounts of bacteria in this product, I believe the bigger issue is the FDA is in the pockets of the largest pet food manufactures who are generally owned by big food producers as a way to profitability dispose of their production waste. It appears to me that the FDA continues to pursue smaller companies for violations while ignoring what goes on at the larger producers.
I have my doubts that there was a real safety issue, especially when you compare it to the problems and even deaths reported by feeding dogs chicken chews sourced from China or reported deaths from kibble such as Beneful.
Just my opinion.
J King
July 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Well said about the FDA, Robin. I agree 100%.
My condolences about your dog. I wish I’d swapped my elderly cat over to a food like Stella and Chewy’s near the end of his life. Instead I allowed him to guide me through a repertoire of grocery brands of kibble and canned. He often accepted novel foods, but I lacked the courage at the time to allow him that choice, blindly following the misguided mainstream view that raw food was somehow riskier than feeding processed utter garbage. Two years on, I still feel I should have trusted my gut instinct but the pressure to conform to the status quo was enormous. I won’t let my other cat down, though. Even to the point of having rows with my neighbour over my cat’s diet when I was transitioning her away from crap.
I used Stella and Chewy’s as a transition food. My cat still eats it from time to time as a topper on her raw food. Last weekend I was in my local raw pet food store, and the owner expressed concern about the FDA’s single-minded focus on raw pet foods. (He stocks products like Stella and Chewys, but its the freezer foods he promotes.) I made the remark that big pet food can’t do raw, but he said something far more wise. He said, yes they can but they can’t make a big enough profit.
P.S. We’re in Canada being concerned about the actions and intentions of the FDA.