Do you like this story?
Pet-food recall: Lick Your Chops pulls product
By Gina Spadafori
May 17, 2007
- If you have a sick pet or a question on your pet’s health, call your veterinarian.
- If you’re new to the site, please check out our general recall information page (includes information on recalled foods).
Yep, another recall. Thanks again to Therese at The Pet Food List. Here’s the release:
In conjunction with our dry pet food supplier and the FDA, as a precautionary measure we have decided to initiate a voluntary recall of our Lick Your Chops Kitten & Cat dry food in the 4# and 18# bags with a Best By date of 4/29/08, due to the remote possibility this product may have been cross-contaminated.
Although the Lick Your Chops Kitten & Cat food does not contain any Wheat, Rice or Corn Gluten protein, it was produced around the same time there may have been other products manufactured that contained rice gluten, even though tests on these products did not indicate any presence of contamination. Although all equipment is thoroughly cleaned at our manufacturer between production runs, to be on the safe side we are initiating this recall with your cat’s best interest at heart. There have been no occurrences of cats getting sick from this product.
We had previously initiated a voluntary recall on our Lamb meal, rice and egg cat dry cat food with a Best By date of 4/29/08. This was the only dry pet food we make containing rice gluten and this recall was also initiated as a precautionary measure. Since the recall we have removed the rice gluten from the Lamb meal, rice and egg dry cat food.
Again, the voluntary recall on the Lick Your Chops Kitten & Cat Food with a Best By Date of 4/29/08 is a precautionary measure we are taking with the FDA and our supplier. All other date codes on the Kitten & Cat dry food, including the most recent production run with a Best By date of 7/25/08 are safe to feed.
Here’s the entire release, on the company’s Web site.
Keeping score? The first recall was nine weeks ago tomorrow.
Update from Christie: As Therese says, “A NY Times article mentioned that Chenango Valley Pet Foods is expanding their recall. Let’s hope Lick Your Chops is the only one!”
Go to the latest blog post | Go to the PetConnection home page
|Technorati Tags: pet food recall, dogs, cats,veterinarian, veterinary
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Is this the same recall item as above?
Just saw this blurb at the very end of an article on todays Tele-Farce.
http://tinyurl.com/yw9rj4
Couldn’t find any other info on it:
“Meanwhile, Chenango Valley Pet Foods said it is expanding its pet food recall to include foods that do not contain the suspect rice protein concentrate but were manufactured during periods when the formulas were being processed. The company said the recall is precautionary, due to the possibility of cross contamination.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-610-821-0608.”
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Yup, that’s it. I found it on the NY Times site, but it’s the same article. We don’t know yet if Lick Your Chops is the only one or not.
Comment by Therese — May 17, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Yep, here we go again, late-night, after-press conference drop.
Nice Angry Cat pic! Very appropriate!!!
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 17, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
OK, I’m glad it’s the same one.
One is way more than enough!
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Peggy,
I agree here we go again. And, I’m afraid it ain’t over till the “fat lady sings” and something tells me it’s going to be awhile…
Katie
Comment by Katie — May 17, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
::: More “Franken Food” :::
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=6530805
“USDA gives final approval for genetically modified rice in Kansas”
“The Agriculture Department has approved a plan to grow genetically modified rice in Kansas despite opposition from the US rice industry and food safety groups.
The decision allows California-based Ventria Bioscience to plant up to 3,200 acres of the rice near Junction City.
The rice is engineered to contain human proteins and then harvested to make special pharmaceutical drugs.”
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Also this one from CNN:
http://tinyurl.com/ytjuqj
” Lawmakers push for change in food safety oversight”
“Spurred by deadly outbreaks of E. coli and other food-borne pathogens, a group of U.S. lawmakers is pushing to put all food safety oversight under a single federal agency.
“I believe the food safety system is broken. It’s collapsing,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, told CNN “We’re unable to protect the public health. We’re unable to protect public confidence in the food supply.”
DeLauro has introduced the Food Safety Act of 2007, which would create a Food Safety Administration responsible for ensuring the security of the food supply from all forms of contamination.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York, introduced a companion bill in the Senate.
n March, growing reports of sick and dying cats and dogs led to a recall of pet food whose maker had used melamine-laced food additives from China. Chickens and hogs that had consumed pet food remnants were withheld from slaughter for a time out of concerns about human melamine consumption.
Currently, 12 federal agencies and 35 laws govern food safety, often with overlapping jurisdictions and different priorities.”
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Is rice gluten aka RPC?
Comment by elliott — May 17, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
About the same as I can tell…
Rice Protien Concentrate (RPC).
Often the terms gluten and protien are interchangeable from what I’ve seen.
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
I just had a funny image of the pictured kitty taking on the pet food guys one at a time.
Go get ‘em kitty!
Comment by Kathi — May 17, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
*views cat pic above*
Oh gawd. NOW I know what it reminds me of:
Stephen King’s “Pet Sematary”!
I’m with Kathi……sick ‘em kitty!!!
Comment by Ally — May 17, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
I was just wondering…if all these pet foods are now being voluntarily recalled due to the “possibility” of “cross contamination”, then is it still considered hysterical to be concerned about the dilution effect in people foods???
Comment by Annette — May 17, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Good kitty……
Sharpen those claws on Duane’s legs…….
Good kitty………..
Comment by PegH — May 17, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Since we are all “off the charts” anyway, here’s a good one from todays’s Sacramento Bee: Biotech Rice OK’d for Kansas planting. Sacramento-based Ventria Biosciences has received federal approval to plant as much as 3,200 acres of its biotech rice in Kansas…
Ventria has genetically engineered a strain of rice that produces two proteins found in human breast milk. (Do I even want to know HOW they did this?) Growing the proteins in rice is much cheaper than making them in other ways. Over the past 3 yrs, the company’s plans to plant its rice have drawn protests from anti-biotech groups in California and Missouri, worried about cross-contanimation of existing crops and that designing food crops to produce pharmaceuticals is a bad idea.
The USDA received 20,034 written comments opposed to the Kansas plantings, and 29 in favor. USDA ruled that planting the rice would have no significant impact on human health or the enviornment. (Heard that one before?)
By the way, these proteins can speed recovery from diarrheal illnesses - which we probably wouldn’t get if we could find out what is really in our food! Or maybe they are targeting what they consider “verbal” diarrhea on these blogs.
And we though Chinese imports were our greatest worry!
Comment by Patricia Hill — May 17, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Re comment by Annette
Hysterical, bent out of shape, totally po’d………..
I think we have all had enough of total disregard for our safety and that of our pets.
Awhile back someone said….”tea party”
Count me in………..
Comment by PegH — May 17, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Someone who’s more familiar with the subject of Country Of Origin Labeling might want to take a look at this.
There was an article that referenced a USDA Publication this month. It sure looks to me from reading the Pub. that USDA is pushing hard to convince consumers that they don’t want COOL because it would cost them a lot of extra $$$.
“Article Questions Benefits of COOL”
“According to an article published by USDA’s Economic Research Service - the benefits of country-of-origin labeling are questionable. The authors of the article note that food manufacturers rarely label food as ‘Made in the USA.’ The lack of that voluntary label - they say - suggest suppliers don’t believe consumers care where their food comes from - or that they prefer the imported product.
The article’s offers go on to say that the group of consumers who prefer country-of-origin labels may be too small for markets to satisfy their demands profitably. Therefore - they suggest consumers who value that information may be better off without COOL - depending on how much they’re willing to pay for the label information. But for those consumers - the authors say the costs could still exceed the benefits. And for those indifferent to labels - the article says the higher prices resulting from mandatory COOL would make them unequivocally worse off.”
USDA .pdf file:
http://tinyurl.com/yqrwas
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 17, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I was thinking. (Being a brain in a box I have a tendency to do that) The journalists have their own questions and needs for their readerships. They can’t alway get to our questions.
But we have our needs and we have readers too. In political circles it’s all the rage to give bloggers passes to events so they can blog about them. It’s hip to have bloggers in the news conferences!
If that is not to your liking, how about if Donna, Sandi K, Kim, Therese, Elizabeth, Ben and I just call Dr. A. and ask him the questions? We could do a little conference call.
I’d tape it and we could put it up on my blog for everyone to listen to.I don’t see why they won’t go for the idea. It would be a good way to deal with a bunch of troublesome bloggers in one session.
I’m actually quite serious.
We have proved we are capable of creating intelligent questions that haven’t been answered by the FDA and USDA. We are “stakeholders” and many of us have readers who want information they aren’t getting. If they wanted to communicate directly with the people who are most concerned they have a perfect opportunity to talk to us directly
“But Spocko, they have said they only will speak to the credentialed press. Why should they talk to us?”
“Good question. It’s complicated. Due to the dilution effect on the internet, someone with a blog with 19 regular readers can suddenly reach millions. The power of the mainstream media is less than it was before. That is not to say that they will be replaced, they are an essential part of our world. However, they are not the only group that needs to have their questions answered.
We represent a very intensely focused group of people and if an organization wants to get out MORE information to the people who really care about the issues, they will work to communicate to all their audiences in as complete a fashion as they can.
However, if an organization’s goal is to LIMIT information, then I could see how they would want to talk to as few people as possible.
So, is the FDA and the USDA’s goal to communicate to people or to limit communication? How about we look at the FDA’s Mission Statement?
“But Spocko, you aren’t a journalist. You are a blogger and in the big picture you aren’t really important enough for a huge government agency to talk to.”
I can prove to you that we are an important group to communicate to.
Say you want to know about someone who is at the heart of this story. For example,
Paul Henderson Menu Foods or Stephen S. Miller of ChemNutra. So you do a Google search. Go ahead search now. I’ll wait.
Who comes up in the top ten? Blogs. I’m there so is Itchmo, Petfoodtracker, Howl911 and others. That is where people are getting their information. So it would behoove them to talk to us and give us the best possible information.
The FDA and USDA know this. They know how to contact us. Come on Julie Zawisza and Jason Brodsky don’t be afraid of us bloggers. Dr. A has handled the WSJ with ease. I’m sure we can’t be tougher than them.
You can reach me at spockosemail at gmail.com
Comment by spocko — May 17, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Re comment by Patricia Hill.
Pls read this article about Ventria Biotech and the FDA. Gives you a general idea of the overal mentality of the FDA and big business. Do you really want to trust the FDA with your food supply .NOT!!!!!.http://www.twnside.org.sg/titl.....lth034.htm
Comment by Serijna — May 17, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
oops
http://www.twnside.org.sg/titl.....lth034.htm
Comment by Serijna — May 17, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
The FDA and USDA know this. They know how to contact us. Come on RE Comment by spocko — May 17, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
“Julie Zawisza and Jason Brodsky don’t be afraid of us bloggers. Dr. A has handled the WSJ with ease. I’m sure we can’t be tougher than them.”
I’m cackling, Spocko.
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
> Is rice gluten aka RPC?
“Rice Gluten” is a misnomer. Technically, rice does not *have* gluten. It does, however, contain protein.
“Rice Protein Concentrate” is a much more appropriate term. I’m not sure why RPC is sometimes referred to as “rice gluten”, my guess is that it’s a marketing term.
There is a type of rice called “glutinous rice”, but “glutinous” refers to the sticky quality it has, not gluten.
You have to be careful, though, because sometimes wheat products can be added to products such as rice flour.
It can be confusing.
Comment by Barry — May 17, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
A late night - just catching up with the blogs. Re FDA press conference:
“…our primary mission here is to safeguard public health in the United States,” said Acheson.
What I want to know is: How does the FDA define “public,” as in public health? Humans only? Any living, breathing creature? Does anyone KNOW?
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
RE FDA PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY
Comment by Acheson re sending the investigators to China:
“…it clearly is not logistically simple to get an investigator to travel from San Francisco to Seattle as it is to get an investigator into China.”
Duh, did he get that backwards?
Then he went on to say, “… from discussions with our Office of International Programs…”
Anyone know what the Office of Int’l Programs is charged with? Very interesting, actually. Among other things, they’re the ones that arrange for international work agreements in foreign countries, such as professional student work programs abroad. I guess this means that if we severe relations with China as far as importing some of their goods, we could also risk putting these work/study overseas programs in jeopardy. Wouldn’t want to do that, would we? ;-)
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
I think the FDA defines “the public” as anyone George W. needs to coddle. This would exclude myself.
Comment by Annette — May 17, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
RE FDA Press Conference Today
Ever notice how many times the word “confuse” comes up?
I’d say the reporters and journalists asking the questions are a fairly well educated lot. So if they’re confused, it’s probably because they’re not being given the straight answers they deserve. Too much discombobulation.
Or do certain members of the USG toss the phrase “don’t want to confuse you” in their sentences as a form of condescension or an attempt at intimidation towards the journalists?
Gosh, could it be that those who bandy the phrase around are insecure?
I daresay, government officials should be able to enlighten us, not confuse us.
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
confused = term reporters use to politely tell FDA they are full of crap, try again.
confuse = term USG tosses out to say they didn’t realize reporters were as up to speed as the troublesome bloggers.
Comment by straybaby — May 17, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
RE: Comment by straybaby — May 17, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Straybaby,
Touche! We are SOOOO wise.
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
RE: Comment by Annette — May 17, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
“I think the FDA defines “the public” as anyone George W. needs to coddle. This would exclude myself.”
Gosh, you’re good, Annette!
Wish a journalist would ask Acheson what HIS definition is [in the context of protecting the public].
Comment by Lynn — May 17, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
Acheson definition of protecting the public is protecting his friends in government and business. What makes me sick is these guys work for us. Can’t we fire them?
Comment by Sharon — May 18, 2007 @ 4:08 am
Quote:
Acheson definition of protecting the public is protecting his friends in government and business. What makes me sick is these guys work for us. Can’t we fire them?
Comment by Sharon — May 18, 2007 @ 4:08 am
Yep. It’s called ‘elections’.
Make sure that you find politicians who are willing to take a stand.
Ask the presidential hopefuls in emails or letters about their stand on this issue.
Demand from your employees, errrrr, representatives that they get on with it and let them know, in no uncertain terms, what you want to have changed and ask them what their time schedule is for implementing those changes.
Then vote accordingly.
It will take some time, consistency and :) being a royal pain, but changes that far reaching needs to be initiated now.
And boycott! Boycott wares that you don’t think are acceptable. Boycott companies who are not willing to listen, not willing to react to the legitimate requests of their customers.
Whenever you shop, ask questions - managers are here for a reason - and make sure that they know why you don’t buy this or that.
Boycott newspapers or TV stations who you think did not *their duty of informing the public* (which is their standard catch phrase when they sniff in someone’s underwear) about that (pet) food scandal.
Comment by MaKo — May 18, 2007 @ 6:45 am