Skip to main content

Warning Letter to Darwins includes Blatant Regulatory Bias

Related News


  1. Sherrie Ashenbremer

    Ok the FDA needs to back of. They are getting way to nosey. They will start regulating raw pet foods and soon it will be gone. Big companies (Purina, Mars etc) has Government in the back pockets. Just wait, they will stop raw food if we don’t stop them

  2. tinab158

    I made this same comment (ok, maybe not as eloquently as you said it) on another blog yesterday.

    It’s clear to see the FDA is actively going after raw food companies (aka: The Little Fish in a Big Pond), while giving kibble companies (aka: The Big Money Fish in the Big Pond) carte blanche to do whatever they want to do, and use whatever they choose to use, in their pet food products.


  3. Jane

    I recently heard a veterinarian on our local public radio station say that bigger companies have more safety protocols in place and so their pet food would likely be safer. This sounds like it’s the opposite – bigger companies are more likely to get a pass on using bad ingredients!

    This is a little off-topic, but what exactly would constitute being “otherwise in violation of the law” when using dead/down/diseased animals doesn’t count as a violation? Does it have to result in illness or death for them to take any action?

  4. paponypal

    Money corrupts all who live in the swamp. Big pharma. NRA, FDA, AFFCO, EIEIO…and the honest citizens doing things correctly are slapped with fines and slander. I agree if Darwins’ food needs addressing but the double standards speak volumes/

  5. Ian

    Thank you as always for shining a light into dark corners.

  6. Marilyn Evans

    Thank you, Susan, for this article. I have been a Darwin’s customer for 6 years and am beyond satisfied with the product quality and the customer service. There must be a way for raw feeders to rise up and demand the end to a double standard in the treatment of pet food by AAFCO and the FDA. Sadly, however, I’ve read your reports of shoddy treatment by these agencies, and it’s very discouraging.

    1. Sharon Testa

      Any pet owner who feeds their pet,Darwins,and are satisfied with Darwin’s will NOT buy this nonsense from AAFCO!! We know what is good and we know that most pet food industries is garbage so screw whatever AAFCO says they back up the nasty Mars,Colgate,Purina,and the rest of them and why Because they get a huge kick back just like all the veterinaries !!

  7. Reader

    Within a rotational diet, I do feed raw and understand its advantages. But it is always a risk.

    However the FDA may be looking at the situation in this way. Canned PF is one category which is safer (of course, only when a quality source of protein is being used to reduce endotoxins). We know the FDA is not proactively looking into this problem, and only reacts to a PF crisis when a pet gets sick (and will not acknowledge endotoxins).

    Then there is animal-livestock-pet dry feed (kibble, pellets, etc.). Raw food is not (usually) fed in a raw state to livestock-animals although it is to dogs and cats, and therefore functions as a unique class. It does appear there is bias against raw, when comparing the number of raw food brands recalled, per class. However, there is a more concentrated segment of manufacturers producing raw food, compared to several hundreds and hundreds of brands producing kibble. Perhaps it is understood by the FDA that kibble is not salmonella free, but the format of the food is relatively less hazardous than raw, meaning the defects of raw require more emphasis! We know that even if owners fed hamburger (sold for human consumption) that the raw meat would still contain pathogens. And I’ve also read that even using HPP on raw meat only suspends pathogens (temporarily), but when the meat is left unattended, the will resume its contamination process. Therefore the sourcing (and all the handling steps) of raw meat are extremely important! So I believe raw food manufacturers should be under particular scrutiny!

    What worries me about raw isn’t just salmonella (which a dog can handle, but to a degree) are the other more serious pathogens which can be dangerous. There is also the recurring “handling” factor among pet owners. Knowledgeable and experienced owners using raw will sterilize dishware and surfaces. But the average pet owner who’s used to serving a dry PF may not clean up “Fido’s” dish, or the holding places of that raw food regularly. I can see the FDA’s alarm. However, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be equally alarmed and diligent about ANY form of PF which is a danger to pets, and is making them sick, or puts a family at risk!

  8. D

    Darwin’s has never lead me astray. I will continue supporting them because they have proven true to being committed to quality, honesty and care (Can’t say the same about the FDA)

Leave a Reply