FDA requires Evanger’s to get emergency permit
By Gina Spadafori
April 24, 2008
Update 4/25: As mentioned by many of you, Evanger’s has now put a statement on their Web site:
Contrary to a news release issued by the FDA Thursday, April 24, 2008, Evanger’s continues to make and distribute its products with FDA approval. Evanger’s is working closely with the FDA and already has addressed many of the FDA’s questions. Evanger’s expects to have the few remaining FDA queries fully satisfied shortly.
No Evanger’s product has been recalled, nor is there any indication that any Evanger’s product is under-processed, unsafe, or contaminated in any way.
Here’s the rest.
***
News release just in from the FDA:
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
FDA Orders Pet Food Maker to Obtain Emergency Operating Permit
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an order requiring that Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc., in Wheeling, Ill., obtain an emergency permit from the FDA before its canned pet food products enter interstate commerce.
A recent inspection revealed significant deviations from prescribed documentation of processes, equipment, and recordkeeping in the production of the company’s thermally processed low acid canned food (LACF) products. These problems could result in under-processed pet foods, which can allow the survival and growth of Clostridium botulinum (C. botulinum), a bacterium that causes botulism in some animals as well as in humans.
“As outlined in the Food Protection Plan, the FDA uses a risk-based approach to locate the areas of greatest risk for foods, and targets preventive controls and inspections to those areas, “ said Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “The FDA’s authority to issue an order requiring an emergency permit is an enforcement tool designed to prevent unsafe foods from reaching consumers.”
The FDA issues an “Order of Need for Emergency Permit” if the agency determines that a company fails to meet the regulatory requirements to process a product that does not present a health risk. For Evanger’s to resume business, the company must document that corrective actions and processing procedures have been implemented to ensure that the finished product will not present a health hazard.
Botulism is a powerful toxin that affects the nervous system and can be fatal. The disease has been documented in dogs and cats. Signs of botulism in animals are progressive muscle paralysis, disturbed vision, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, and progressive weakness to the body. Death is usually due to paralysis of the heart or the muscles used in breathing.
In light of human botulism illnesses and recalls that occurred due to under-processed hot dog chili sauce, and potentially under-processed canned green beans, FDA has urged all LACF processors to review their operations and the apply scientific principals and regulations that have been established to provide a safe product.
While FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has authority over animal feed and foods, CFSAN is responsible for regulating all human and animal LACF processing. The two centers are collaborating on this enforcement action.
Gina, I just got your newsletter.
However, did you want Pet Connection website to be displayed as the Pet Connection Newsletter?
I am confused.
I thought I’d get news.
Good story about botulism—is there a cure?
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 24, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
The Pet Connection e-mail newsletter goes out to subscribers once a month and is basically a “best of” selected from the previous month’s offerings from all our sources — books, columns, web sites, etc.
It’s not an exact science, and I’m still getting a feel for what would be helpful to readers in that newsletter.
Suggestions are of course welcome!
By the way: Sign up for the monthly e-newsletter here. You’ll be automatically entered in our monthly drawing, with retail value of $1,000.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Geez - I always was suspicous of Evenger’s after seeing poor quality in the foods I have tried from them….And By Nature’s recent issues with grain hulls in their grainless canned food (they are also canned by Evangers).
Comment by Jenny — April 24, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I’m not familiar with the term “low acid canned food” but apparently they are specifically concerned about botulism in this case. The question that comes to mind is: If the FDA is going to take this action against Evanger’s due to an inspection indicating “significant deviations from prescribed documentation of processes, equipment, and recordkeeping”, why was no similar type action taken against Menu last year? I’m assuming 9 dead feed trial cats accompanied by customer complaints would at least be as serious as the previously mentioned concerns. Apparently the CFO took it seriously enough to dump his Menu stock.
Comment by slt — April 24, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
This is even more interesting because Evanger’s is Kosher. Which under other circumstances would make it a much safer food (you can’t use any part of a diseased animal in kosher food, unlike non-kosher where you discard the diseased part (e.g. cancerous liver) and use the rest. And that’s true for food for human consumption as well as animals.
And I too wonder why the FDA isn’t worried about offending an American manufacturer but, is so, so careful with the Chinese. Of course they were right to do this - but it would be nice to see a little consistency in their enforcement.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 24, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Wasn’t this the company that Rachael Ray visited and hyped in her recent show “Rachael Ray Feeds Your Pets”?
Comment by Lori — April 25, 2008 @ 5:48 am
Comment by Lori — April 25, 2008 @ 5:48 am
Yes! I saw that show and remember Evanger’s plant being featured.
Comment by slt — April 25, 2008 @ 5:54 am
In home canning, low acid foods are foods that must be canned using a pressure cooker so that they are cooked at a higher temperature than just a boiling water bath will give. In commercial processes, I’m assuming they have specific protocols for time and temperatures of canned foods. There was a case a few months ago where chili (also a low acid food)was not properly processed and there was a risk of botulism. I think it’s easier for the FDA to review a company’s processes and procedures than to figure out who’s putting poison in pet food. If it’s actually okay to stray from recipes and mix different lots of food because there is no regulation against it, that’s where we have big problems that the FDA isn’t going to catch. Figuring out who’s not running their machines correctly is an easy “catch.”
Comment by C.L.H. — April 25, 2008 @ 7:16 am
Which sort of illustrates my point even more. I mean, if the FDA is going to review printed records at Evanger’s, monitor actual processes, note differences, etc - that all sounds like good detective work. But to my mind, if I worked for the FDA and heard from Menu last year that they’ve got 9 dead feed trial cats and bunch of customer complaints - I’d say “Hold everything!” cos there’s no detective work required to assess something ain’t right. Now figuring out WHAT was wrong would be hard work, no doubt. But that would come after I’d already put the plant on an imeediate HOLD status.
Comment by slt — April 25, 2008 @ 7:28 am
The reason they aren’t as hard on China? Politics. =/
Comment by Pai — April 25, 2008 @ 8:54 am
I saw the statement by the FDA so naturally, that had me concerned, but I called the company and they explained what is going on. It’s summed up in this release that I found on their website:
April 25, 2008
To Our Valued Customers:
The US Food & Drug Administration conducted a routine inspection of Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc. during February & March of 2008. As a result of the inspection, the FDA raised questions regarding recordkeeping. Neither Evanger’s nor FDA has received ANY customer complaints questioning the safety of Evanger’s products relating to this minor recordkeeping issue.
The FDA has not raised any questions as to the safety of any of Evanger’s products.
Although FDA has raised these questions, Evanger’s continues to make and distribute its products with FDA approval. Evanger’s is working closely with expert process consultants, TechniCal Inc., which has already fully addressed many of FDA’s inquiries, and we expect to have all FDA concerns fully satisfied shortly.
Evanger’s is committed to providing high quality, safe, and nutritious all-natural and organic pet food, as it has done since 1935.
Respectfully,
Joel Sher
Vice President
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc.
Comment by Angela Bostetter — April 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Received this from Evanger’s:
The US Food & Drug Administration conducted a routine inspection of Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc. during February & March of 2008. As a result of the inspection, the FDA raised questions regarding recordkeeping. Neither Evanger’s nor FDA has received ANY customer complaints questioning the safety of Evanger’s products relating to this minor recordkeeping issue.
The FDA has not raised any questions as to the safety of any of Evanger’s products.
Although FDA has raised these questions about recordkeeping, Evanger’s continues to make and distribute its products with FDA approval. Evanger’s is working closely with expert process consultants, TechniCal Inc., which has already fully addressed many of FDA’s inquiries, and we expect to have all FDA concerns fully satisfied shortly.
Evanger’s is committed to providing high quality, safe, and nutritious all-natural and organic pet food, as it has done since 1935.
Respectfully,
Joel Sher
Vice President
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc.
Comment by slt — April 25, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Hmmm…I don’t know.
One of my kitties got sick to her stomach after eating some Evangers Holistic Pheasant (she had eaten it many times before with no reaction). Could be a coincidence, but then maybe not.
In this day and time we have good reason to be extra careful about what we feed our pets.
I did email Evangers several weeks ago, asking them if they import any ingredients from China. I received no reply. Either they didn’t get my email, or just didn’t bother to answer.
I lost one of my kitties to last year’s pet food recalls, I don’t want a repeat, so…
Evangers is off my shopping list for now.
Sorry Evangers, but I need more reassurance.
Comment by Marcy — April 25, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
The FDA news release is highly inaccurate and misleading. Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Company is not under emergency permit and is currently manufacturing and distributing its products worldwide with FDA approval. There have been no allegations for unsafe product or recalls. Please go to evangersdogfood.com for company statement.
Holly Sher
President of Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co, Inc.
Comment by holly sher — April 25, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
This is what it says on the Evanger’s website now which differs from what I received earlier:
(I notice it does not say, as posted above, that Evanger’s “is not under emergency permit”)
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company Responds to FDA News Release
April 25, 2008
To our valued customers:
As a result of a routine inspection of the Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company manufacturing facilities by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA recently raised questions regarding recordkeeping and other issues at the pet food producer’s facilities.
Contrary to a news release issued by the FDA Thursday, April 24, 2008, Evanger’s continues to make and distribute its products with FDA approval. Evanger’s is working closely with the FDA and already has addressed many of the FDA’s questions. Evanger’s expects to have the few remaining FDA queries fully satisfied shortly.
No Evanger’s product has been recalled, nor is there any indication that any Evanger’s product is under-processed, unsafe, or contaminated in any way.
“As our customers, retailers and distributors know, Evanger’s takes the quality and safety of its pet foods very seriously,” said Holly Sher, president of Evanger’s. “Evanger’s has a long history of using only human-grade ingredients in our products. The FDA has not called into question the wholesomeness of any ingredient we use. We are confident Evanger’s products continue to be safe, wholesome and natural, so confident that we continue to feed them daily to our own pets.”
All ingredients in Evanger’s products are sourced in the United States and all manufacturing is done in its suburban Chicago facility. The routine FDA inspection was related only to Evanger’s canned foods and is not affiliated with of production its dry pet food products.
As the United States’ oldest natural pet food company, Evanger’s products are known for their human-grade ingredients, including hand-packed meats, fish and poultry, and 100% meat and organic meals.
Consumers and distributors may contact Evanger’s customer service department at US +1 8002886796 Call for further information. In addition, all new or updated information will be immediately posted to our Website, http://www.evangersdogfood.com
ABOUT EVANGER’S DOG & CAT FOOD CO., INC.
Established in 1935, EVANGER’S Dog & Cat Food Company, Inc. is the oldest natural dog food company in the United States. Today, the suburban Chicago company is as innovative as when Fred Evanger first founded it, producing a wide array of human-grade dog and cat food dinners and supplements.
Respectfully,
Joel Sher
Vice President
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc.
Comment by slt — April 26, 2008 @ 4:03 am
Okay….this really worries me…if they are not following the right steps then why isn’t the FDA closing them down.
I looked at Evanger’s website today and I do not see their
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company Responds to FDA News Release anymore……
Are they running scared……???????!!!!!! And they took it off their website for whatever reason……to me not a good sign…
I have both my dogs on this food. What is your take on all of this????
Comment by sue — April 26, 2008 @ 6:37 am
Sue,
This is the link to the page where I see the Evanger’s response:
http://evangersdogfood.com/abo....._Joel.html
Comment by slt — April 26, 2008 @ 6:53 am
The Response is at:
http://www.evangersdogfood.com....._Joel.html
My cats won’t eat their products, so it’s not a worry for me.
I simply don’t think that if safety was NOT an issue that the FDA would do something like that.
I guess it’s like most things - two sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I do know that a pet owner had a private test done on her dog food after her dog got sick, it is believed to be Evangers pheasant and brown rice, best by Oct. 17, 2009, code #001 and it tested with copper at 1.23 mg/100g.
http://www.pfpsa.org/bodycote1.jpg
Maybe the company can state if that is high or low copper content or how a pet owner should view the result.
Comment by Ann H — April 26, 2008 @ 6:56 am
Just looked up Copper content for a food I found via Google -
Waltham Veterinary Diet Canine Lowfat Canned:
Copper: .74mg per 100g as fed
Same food, dry:
Copper: 1.85mg per 100g as fed
General dietary recommendations:
NRC says for Copper:
dog: 2.9ppm in the total diet
AAFCO says (on a dry matter basis):
minimum: 7.3mg/kg
maximum: 250mg/kg
Comment by slt — April 26, 2008 @ 8:21 am
The AAFCO numbers also exclude copper oxides don’t they:
“Because of very poor bioavailability, copper from oxide sources that are added to the diet should not be considered as components in meeting the minimum nutrient level.”
How would a pet owner know how much copper was actually in the pet food if there is copper from oxide sources in the food, but they are *not* represented in the label nutrient % ?
What is the copper load for the pet foods, and is it acceptable?
Fanconi syndrome is an issue in some breeds, and an overage in copper can cause problems in cats & dogs.
There were earlier tests on Evanger canned foods reported:
“The levels for Organic Turkey &Chicken :
copper 26ppm as fed 104 dry wt. & 28 as fed 117 Dry
zinc 154ppm as fed 618 dry & 138 as fed & 577 dry weight
PPM parts per million is the same as mg/kg.By my calculations,(verified with a chemist,but maybe I’m wrong since school was long ago) each can of food has over 4 mg of copper.RDA for adult humans is 2mg,MAX for 1-3 yr old kids is 1mg as a reference.Following advice I got from 3 different professionals,I had Midwest retest the foods to make sure there was no lab error ,same results of trace minerals.Are these levels common ? Not that I could find.Do I know for sure what these levels will do after 1 feeding or 365 feedings? Nope,and as far as I could find no one else does either.I’ll pass on using my babies as test subjects,thanks.And some dog breeds are very susceptible to copper toxicity.”
http://itchmoforums.com/pet-fo.....935.0.html
The copper issue and the impact isn’t something I’d like to experience.
Rusted or beaten cans and the FDA spouting botulism risk all over the warning release is not overriden just because a pet food company says so.
Some real data needs to be presented IMO.
Comment by Ann H — April 26, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Inconsistent quality, partially filled cans with air space and “chunks” of pea sized unblended ingredients took Evangers off my list quite a while ago. A case of expensive pheasant that could not be served to my pets, or even donated because of concern for what was in it, not good. May have been my last attempt at finding commercial food, it was around that time.
That said.
What concerns me a lot more is that the FDA is targeting smaller companies. The FDA has “private” meetings with PFI members and lobbyists and then they all of a sudden like go get all “official” on a small company?
This sudden zeal? I have a good idea who is holding the whip.
Until the FDA holds Purina , yeah right, to account for some ghastly products, they are still just playing games and serving the interests of the corporations.
And that is not going to result in safer pet (or human) food.
This is just sleight of hand to distract the pet owners the FDA _knows_are looking from something sleazier a PFI member is doing. Maybe MenuFoods is going to have a bonfire, or ship the evidence back to China for shrimp food, maybe the first big dump of BSE infected downer cattle are being put into “natural “,”healthy”, 100% “guaranteed” pet food.
It will be something like that.
Comment by Duaneisadork — April 26, 2008 @ 8:41 am
SLT, here’s info I got out of HSDB:
“”During the hemolytic crisis the kidneys fail as a result of clogging of renal tubules with hemoglobin & renal tubular & glomerular necrosis brought about by excessive amounts of copper in the kidneys. The hemolytic crisis is accompanied by an elevated plasma creatinine phosphokinase concentration indicative of damage to skeletal muscles, thought to be due to anoxia & some factor released during hemolysis. “
“Symptoms of chronic copper poisoning in mammals are nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, yellow watery diarrhea, dizziness, general debility, jaundice, green stools, saliva, & vomitus. /Copper salts/
[Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal Toxicity in Mammals, 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1978., p. 27]**PEER REVIEWED**”
The reasoning for my interest in copper is the symptoms & similarity to those of pets reported as sick in 2007 and the research I (and others)did on the Alltech recall for “pcb-like dioxin contamination of copper sulphate” earlier.
Comment by Ann H — April 26, 2008 @ 8:49 am
Duane there have been several consumers indicating they had talked to Evangers.
The first letter got majorly edited and another version published , minus an interesting sentence or two (see earlier posts in the thread):
“Neither Evanger’s nor FDA has received ANY customer complaints questioning the safety of Evanger’s products relating to this minor recordkeeping issue.
The FDA has not raised any questions as to the safety of any of Evanger’s products.”
One, there have been several times people have asserted that they spoke with Joel about problems; Two if the FDA wasn’t raising safety questions, then why the release - which without doubt in my eyes is due to safety issues?
It just doesn’t sit right at all with me.
Comment by Ann H — April 26, 2008 @ 8:59 am
>The first letter got majorly edited and another version published , minus an interesting sentence or two (see earlier posts in the thread)
You mean the first letter Evanger’s put on their Web site, right? Because we don’t edit comments here.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 26, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Until the FDA holds Purina , yeah right, to account for some ghastly products, they are still just playing games and serving the interests of the corporations.
And that is not going to result in safer pet (or human) food.
Comment by Duaneisadork — April 26, 2008 @ 8:41 am
I’d like to see the FDA hold Purina and other larger manufacturers to account for their products too. Some weird looking stuff in those cans…in my opinion.
Back to Evangers, my kitties were getting to the point that they weren’t real crazy about it. And yes, I saw the hard, pea sized bits of stuff in the cans too…inedible. The cans bother me too. When I buy them they are dirty looking, and the metal looks cheap to me. Kind of like the tin cans that make food taste like metal? It’s a shame, as their premise for the food, ingredients, etc. makes for a good sounding food…but when I got the end product it has turned out to be disappointing.
I bought some Wellness canned last night, and this morning it was greeted with much enthusiasm by my “girls.” Plus the cans are recyclable (coated inside) aluminum. Anyone have any problems so far with this food?
Comment by Marcy — April 26, 2008 @ 11:27 am
One more note…
last night at the supermarket, I saw a lady, who was a senior citizen, shopping for her pets. It occurred to me that most likely a lot of seniors are forced to purchase their pet food still from the supermarkets, as their income is fixed and limited.
They deserve to be able to have the assurance of purchasing “safe” pet foods, even if their budgets are limited. Food that have the assurance of not containing toxins, botulism, etc.
All of the pet food industry must be called to account for the safety and reliability of their products.
Comment by Marcy — April 26, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Marcy, that has been our point here all along. The food supply MUST BE MADE SAFE for us all. Our regulatory agencies seem unable or unwilling to remember that they work for us.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 26, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Right now, more than a year after the 2007 mass pet poisoning, AKA the Asia 2004 mass pet food poisoning -Part 2, the pet food is no safer and due to the likely dumping of some grim stuff in this next year, the pet food may get worse.
I am not certain that we did the pets any favor in asking for human quality ingredients, all things considered.
Selective and politically motivated enforcement by the FDA is not going to make pet food safer.
Comment by Duaneisadork — April 26, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Gina said: >>You mean the first letter Evanger’s put on their Web site, right? Because we don’t edit comments here. <<
Gina,
Sorry, I should have been really clear - I know you all didn’t edit it.
It was the Evanger’s own changes in their letters they were distributing/displaying that were so notable, especially as more people became aware and expressed reactions to the FDA release.
Comment by Ann H — April 26, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
http://www.evangersdogfood.com....._Joel.html
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company Responds to FDA News Release
April 25, 2008
To our valued customers:
As a result of a routine inspection of the Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company manufacturing facilities by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA recently raised questions regarding recordkeeping and other issues at the pet food producer’s facilities.
Contrary to a news release issued by the FDA Thursday, April 24, 2008, Evanger’s continues to make and distribute its products with FDA approval. Evanger’s is working closely with the FDA and already has addressed many of the FDA’s questions. Evanger’s expects to have the few remaining FDA queries fully satisfied shortly.
No Evanger’s product has been recalled, nor is there any indication that any Evanger’s product is under-processed, unsafe, or contaminated in any way.
“As our customers, retailers and distributors know, Evanger’s takes the quality and safety of its pet foods very seriously,” said Holly Sher, president of Evanger’s. “Evanger’s has a long history of using only human-grade ingredients in our products. The FDA has not called into question the wholesomeness of any ingredient we use. We are confident Evanger’s products continue to be safe, wholesome and natural, so confident that we continue to feed them daily to our own pets.”
All ingredients in Evanger’s products are sourced in the United States and all manufacturing is done in its suburban Chicago facility. The routine FDA inspection was related only to Evanger’s canned foods and is not affiliated with of production its dry pet food products.
As the United States’ oldest natural pet food company, Evanger’s products are known for their human-grade ingredients, including hand-packed meats, fish and poultry, and 100% meat and organic meals.
Consumers and distributors may contact Evanger’s customer service department at US +1 8002886796 Call for further information. In addition, all new or updated information will be immediately posted to our Website, http://www.evangersdogfood.com
ABOUT EVANGER’S DOG & CAT FOOD CO., INC.
Established in 1935, EVANGER’S Dog & Cat Food Company, Inc. is the oldest natural dog food company in the United States. Today, the suburban Chicago company is as innovative as when Fred Evanger first founded it, producing a wide array of human-grade dog and cat food dinners and supplements.
Respectfully,
Joel Sher
Vice President
Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co., Inc.
Comment by Brett — April 26, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Marcy, that has been our point here all along. The food supply MUST BE MADE SAFE for us all. Our regulatory agencies seem unable or unwilling to remember that they work for us.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 26, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Gina, I know. Seeing that lady last night just drove that home to me in a different way.
What we must do is keep vigilant in reminding them that they DO work for US, and keep a close eye on these pet food manufacturers. They also need to be reminded that we are their customers. And as such, we have the right to not buy their products if they don’t put out something that we can trust.
Comment by Marcy — April 26, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
“All ingredients in Evanger’s products are sourced in the United States”
I still want clearer language than this. If it was grain, where was it farmed? If it was an animal, where did it grow up? If it was a processed ingredient (such as wheat gluten) where were the input materials farmed/raised and where was the processing done?
“Sourced in the United States” doesn’t even come close to answering these questions adequately.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 27, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 27, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Are you thinking that companies may use the term “sourced in the US” to hide that their ingredients are from overseas but purchased from a US distributor for example?
Comment by slt — April 27, 2008 @ 7:25 am
SLT asked: ..Are you thinking that companies may use the term “sourced in the US” to hide that their ingredients are from overseas but purchased from a US distributor for example?
That is what I have found to be true. When looking around for supplements and asking specifically where they came from/originated. They said they are “sourced in the US”. I asked but where did your supplier get X? The answer “I don’t know, I’ll check” then “China” came back as the answer from all 3 companies.
It’s like the undercover video done on a local TV station checking on fish in restaurants. The hidden camera showed the person in the kitchen instructing the employees to tell patrons that the fish came from the US. If someone asked if the fish came from China, tell them no, from the US… and then they shot a picture of the shipping box for that particular fish & restaurant.. it was clearly marked China.
Clever aren’t they?
Comment by Ann H — April 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am
I again say: If we want to “let the market decide,” then let’s level the playing field so we “market deciders” can have the information we need to make informed decisions.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 27, 2008 @ 8:19 am
So if I am spending more at the grocery store for a food because it says on it, for example, “grown in the USA” while most of its competitors make no similar claim, am I a manipulated market decider? Because possibly the “USA” claim is untrue? Isn’t anyone enforcing this kind of thing? FDA?
?
?
?
*echo*
Comment by slt — April 27, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Grown in the US is much better of a label than Sourced in the US.
Right now, I think companies tell us whatever they think will get us to buy. Pat us on the head and push us to the cash register.
Along with labeling, I think we’re in need of some serious advertising regulations, or at least specific definitions.
Comment by Ann H — April 27, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Here’s a page I found with FTC’s take on it:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline.....deusa.shtm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 27, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I again say: If we want to “let the market decide,” then let’s level the playing field so we “market deciders” can have the information we need to make informed decisions.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 27, 2008 @ 8:19 am
“Here, here…and I second that!”
I also agree with Ann H: “Along with labeling, I think we’re in need of some serious advertising regulations, or at least specific definitions.”
It’s my money, and I have a right to know what I’m buying. Let’s stop all this secrecy and intrigue with product labeling.
In the long run, it’s going to backfire on the manufacturers that do this, as nothing can stay hidden indefinitely. Either someone will find out that they are being dishonest, or the worst scenario…someone will get sick from their product.
When are these manufacturers going to wake up and realize that they have a responsibility to the public…their customers…and stop playing games???
Comment by Marcy — April 27, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Sandi K apparently learned alot going thru this past year & has done an outstanding job on breaking the spin!!!
Great, Sandi!!
Evanger’s says no worry.. the FDA apparently begs to differ:
http://itchmoforums.com/news-r.....4#msg60914
Comment by Ann H — April 28, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
I’m not so sure we can rely on manufacturers or regulators to watch out for consumers—history has shown us this time and again. Consumers need to watch out for ourselves, meaning do the research to find healthy things for ourselves and our loved ones. This is, of course, a horrible state of affairs, which certainly leaves many without resources reliant on the vagaries of the market. Unfortunately, I don’t see these circumstances improving anytime soon.
Comment by Mark Bullock — April 28, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
But again - how CAN we watch out for ourselves when important information is withheld, misstated, or stated unclearly (i.e. “sourced in the US)?
That’s the scariest part about it - information is of paramount importance in this fight, and those who control the information are in the driver’s seat here.
And therefore, I homecook . . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 28, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
To me, a company who answers honestly that their ingredients are from overseas is higher on the list than one who attempts to deceive consumers by answering that they buy from a US supplier and failing to disclose that supplier gets ingredients from overseas. The latter type of company leaves me wondering what else they may be trying to hide.
If I was going to start up a pet food company (I’m not), I would print on the label where the meat/grains/veggies were raised/processed, that all ingredients were deemed fit for human consumption, and exactly where the food was made with an address and phone number. In addition, I’d post a video on my company website, youtube, etc of the food actually being made - the ingredients being opened and inspected at my plant, the clean facility where the processing was done, etc.
Is there any pet food company right now doing anything like that?
Comment by slt — April 29, 2008 @ 4:10 am
Thanks to Sandi K and Ann H for getting this info out — and it is nice to see the FDA responding to our inquiries—-steps in the right direction!
Comment by Carol V — April 29, 2008 @ 6:04 am
all ingredients are domestic.
Comment by mike morga — May 6, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Mike … do you work for Evanger’s? Title?
Because their Web site still refers to “sourced” ingredients which may well mean they buy them from American companies that import the ingredients.
Suspicious of word play? Yes we are, and with good reason.
If the ingredients are domestic — from the U.S. or Canada — than THAT’S what the company should say. Otherwise … well … “sourced” is just a weasel-word.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 6, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
I am an Evanger’s representative, and I want to answer a few of the questions here. When we say that we source all of our ingredients in the US, it means everything that can be bought from US farmers is used. In fact, the only two ingredients that are not from the US are our Venison and our Lamb. There is no wheat gluten in any of our products, as someone stated above. Joel, co-owner, used to work in the whole meat industry, and buys only products from suppliers he knows and trusts. We have never had a recall, and it is because of high quality ingredients.
This was a scheduled inspection by the FDA, the first since the Sher’s bought the company in 2001, and we honestly thought that we were making everything by FDA regulation. Over the last year, the FDA has cracked down on smaller issues and has literally cracked down on us. We were documenting everything and manufacturing everything the way that we knew how to, and, other than an isolated incidence involving an extortionist, most pets are happy on our products. If you have any questions, please contact our office at 847-537-0102.
Respectfully,
Brenton Weaver
Evanger’s Pet Foods
Comment by Brenton Weaver — May 14, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
“…other than an isolated incidence involving an extortionist, most pets are happy on our products.”
Comment by Brenton Weaver — May 14, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Well that’s a bizarre sounding allegation from a pet food company.
Comment by slt — May 14, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
If you think that is bizarre check out the multiple threads on Evangers on Itchmoforums,consumer affairs & hub pages.
Comment by Leslie k — May 22, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Yes, its bizarre but its the way Evangers works. My dogs split a can of their food this past Wednesday and half an hour later, were rushed to the emergency animal hospital, unable to stand or even hold up their heads. An hour later, both were fighting for their lives. These are 10-lb pomeranians we are talking about! My girl came home after a day and a half, my guy got home yesterday-Saturday. He has seizures now, and might for life, and he is on a variety of meds. He is very, very weak and still has muscular control issues. You cannot imagine the horror of thinking you are feeding your babies a quality product and then watch then struggle to live. Its been a living nightmare, and 4 phone messages and 2 emails to the ‘concerned and caring’ evangers food company have been unanswered. Oh, but wait..my roommate did talk with joel sher, who responded with a ‘oh please’ when told of the incident and then hung up on her. Yet, he has posted on other sites that this didnt happen. It did indeed happen.
Comment by Cinammon & Thunder — November 23, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I don’t buy it anymore, as I kept seeing cans on the shelves starting to “bulge.”
I immediately took them to the manager of the pet store, and their reply was, “oh my goodness, thank you!”
Comment by Marcy — November 23, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Just an FYI, I was contacted yesterday by the OCI [office of criminal investigation for the FDA] the Evangers reinspections didn’t go very well and they are interested in speaking to anyone who has had trouble with any foods Evangers makes.They don’t want their name & # published,so call the FDA .
Comment by Leslie K — May 6, 2009 @ 7:42 am
LeslieK, first to dig up the past.
I, for one, would not take the advice from a person who tried to extort money from the company she is slamming. (Her itchmo signature says it all….)
Been using Evanger’s for years and stand by them 100%
!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Brian Carlisle — June 15, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
OK … well, you’ve both had your say on what seems to be a nasty personal argument on another forum. So take it back there, now.
Thanks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 15, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Sorry Gina,this shill is following me all around the net.
Comment by Leslie K — June 15, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Do these have anything to do with the recalls in 2007? Switched to this food during the scare and have dogs have been doing excellent on it!!! And I feel very good now that I switched them to a food that has everything made in america. A paperwork issue? I guess that makes sense, because certainly all of the ingredients they use must go through inspections too if they’re from america also, right???
Comment by Gary Kuipers — June 17, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Gary, This problem is unrelated to the ‘07 melamine/CA recall. Botulism is a very scary disease. (The CDC website has a lot of info.) Up until the 1970’s, there were occasional outbreaks from commercially canned food. The laws were made tougher, and there were no outbreaks until the chili and bean recalls of summer, 2007.
The paperwork is very, very important in my mind. Once stuff is canned, and if it has not been heated high enough, long enough, a couple of botulism spores can grow and produce enough toxin to put an adult on a respirator for months. Companies have to be able to prove the food cooked long enough at a high enough temperature to kill those spores.
Personally, I consider the risk too high. I gather that they haven’t found spores, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there. Once it’s canned, they don’t open the cans and test them; they ship them out. The other issue I have is the law says you must have that paperwork. They have had a year to rectify the situation, and the FDA is saying they haven’t.
Comment by Suze — June 17, 2009 @ 1:25 pm