On November 26, 2018 pet food manufacturer Sunshine Mills issued a recall for multiple brands they manufacture; Evolve, Sportsman’s Pride, and Triumph. All pet foods were recalled for excess vitamin D.
Almost three weeks earlier (20 days earlier), another recall was issued by a brand that was co-packed by Sunshine Mills for the exact same excess vitamin D cause. On November 6, 2018 multiple lots of Orlando brand dog food was recalled by Lidl. The recall announcement stated “In association with Sunshine Mills…” – clearly indicating Sunshine Mills was the manufacturer.
Based on the recall announcement dates, it appears Sunshine Mills took almost three weeks to trace pet food lots that they manufactured which contained excess vitamin D – almost three weeks to alert the public to deadly pet foods.
Present day…we learn that Sunshine Mills is suing the vitamin D supplier involved in all of these recalls. Question is – who is at fault, should Sunshine Mills even be filing a lawsuit against the vitamin supplier?
From Vitallaw.com’s overview of the case: “Sunshine Mills had been purchasing the Vitamin D3 product without issues for fourteen years. It generally ordered Vitamin D3 7500 from Nutra-Blend by phone or online. However, when it sent an email order for ‘Vitamin D-3,’ Nutra-Blend sent Vitamin D3 500, which is vastly more concentrated than D3 7500.”
“Sunshine Mills thought that Nutra-Blend had only one Vitamin D3 product and did not notice the title discrepancy on the bill of lading. It accepted the delivery, approved and paid the invoice, and placed three more orders for the wrong concentration of Vitamin D3. Sunshine Mills mixed the Vitamin D3 500 it accepted in dog food. As a result, several dogs developed Vitamin D toxicity, became sick, and in some cases, died.”
“Nutra-Blend insisted that Sunshine Mills could not recover consequential damages because a simple inspection of the Vitamin D3 would have indicated it was obviously the wrong product and prevented the damages. Sunshine Mills, on the other hand, pointed out that it knew of only one Vitamin D3 product sold by Nutra-Blend, which Nutra-Blend had correctly sent many times in years prior.”
Of significance the lawsuit stated: “Nutra-Blend characterized Vitamin D3 7500 and 500 as drastically different in appearance and price.” The two very different products looked “drastically different” and the price was different.
Who do you think was at fault with these recalls?
Vitamin Supplier
- Shipped one product for 14 years to Sunshine Mills, but then shipped a different product when it received an email order that did not specify which vitamin D3 product was being ordered.
- The supplier shipped the same high potency vitamin D3 four times.
Or the Pet Food Manufacturer
- Sunshine Mills placed four orders of the wrong concentration of Vitamin D3 – a product labeled differently and priced differently without questioning the new label, product name, or cost difference.
- Sunshine Mills placed four orders of the wrong concentration of Vitamin D3 without testing the incoming ingredient or finished products.
- Sunshine Mills was aware of an excess vitamin D issue on November 6, 2018, but took 20 more days to trace multiple other products that contained the same deadly excess vitamin D.
The Sunshine Mills lawsuit claims the vitamin supplier (Nutra-Blend) was at fault (in part) for “negligence for sending the wrong Vitamin D3.”
Or is Sunshine Mills negligent for not paying close attention to potentially deadly ingredients, not testing, and not promptly tracing adulterated lots?
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
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 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2025 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
The 2025/26 Treat List
Susan’s List of trusted pet treat manufacturers. Click Here to learn more.
CAM in FL
September 11, 2025 at 10:14 am
I would attribute responsibility to both parties equally. Suppliers should verify what product was ordered and shipped and the manufacturer should have verified the product received was the same as ordered prior to inclusion in the dog food.
Terryward
September 11, 2025 at 3:21 pm
NutraBlend….I can’t even
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/nutra-blend-llc-subsidiary-land-olakes-651174-05222023
nancy berg
September 11, 2025 at 11:02 am
Pet Food Manufacturer is at fault.The buck stops there.As a nurse practitioner, it is ultimately their fault to make sure that the ingredients they put in their food are correct, test and report immediately any mistakes. the vitamin company should have questioned the order, but does not hold ultimate responsibility.
Kelley
September 11, 2025 at 11:47 am
The supplier of the D3 product was simply filling an order. Would it have been nice if they noticed a change in what was ordered? Of course! Probably someone was just reading a piece of paper and filling and order in a warehouse somewhere. The manufacturer should take complete responsibility.
Angela
September 11, 2025 at 1:30 pm
The supplier made the error but the onus is on the manufacturer. What else is the manufacturer overlooking?
T Allen
September 11, 2025 at 1:58 pm
Pet Food Manufacturer is at fault 100%. The employee accepting the order at the dock would likely have have noticed the change in packaging but the invoice said D3 500 and that’s what they were looking at so, not their fault. The employee mixing the D3 500 should have questioned it but likely got told by the manager to “just do it and don’t ask questions”. The managers are at fault along with QC. The shipping dept manager should have noticed the change in pricing and double checked it. It’s quality control’s job to ensure the product is correctly formulated and they absolutely should have noticed the change in packaging on the floor and looked at the product, noticed the label change and stopped production to clarify the change. If it was human grade and done under USDA supervision the Fed inspector should/would have noticed when looking at the paperwork. We know FDA is never in the plant so no help there. Sunshine’s got a big problem. No excuses.
debraulrich@mac.com
September 11, 2025 at 2:20 pm
THE PET FOOD MANUFACTURER!!!
Michelle
September 11, 2025 at 2:53 pm
Pet food manufacturers should have the accountability to test and/or verify excipients prior to use and have validated manufacturing process with the appropriate quality oversight. Finished goods should be tested prior to market release to ensure they meet the label claim. Shame on the FDA for not be stricter just because this is for a pet, especially after one recall.
Lynda
September 11, 2025 at 5:42 pm
The manufacturer is at fault. I worked 15 years in quality assurance for a medical manufacturing plant. In-coming QA is responsible for accepting goods and should have caught the mistake through testing of the material before it being released for production.
Yvonne McGehee
September 11, 2025 at 6:55 pm
The pet food manufacturer is clearly in error. The vitamin supplier simply sent them what they ordered, it’s not on the supplier to determine what the customer means to order vs what they did order. Sunshine employees should have noticed the difference.