FDA: Nutro not under investigation
By Gina Spadafori
April 24, 2009
E-mail from the FDA in response to our inquiry, from FDA spokesperson Laura Alvey:
I can confirm that Nutro Products, Inc. is not under investigation by the FDA.
48 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Then what basis did they have for denying the FOIA request? Because that looks like the reason they gave.
I guess now they either have to turn over what they have to the reporter, or come up with another reason.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 24, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Will Consumer Affairs be held accountable for starting all this, do you think?
Comment by Original Lori — April 24, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
They reported there have been complaints made to them. They reported the FDA refused their FOIA, and they said an unnamed FDA source said it was because of an investigation. They reported NUTRO denied there was an investigation.
I agree with Christie: I would like to know why the Freedom of Information Act request was denied.
That question and a couple of others are awaiting FDA response. I’m sure both ConsumerAffairs.com and NUTRO would appreciate a little help from the FDA in getting this matter sorted out. As would we all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Yeah, the FDA isn’t on my mpst-trusted list either. In fact, their seal of approval means less and less to me. I hope that changes.
Comment by Original Lori — April 24, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Regardless of whether or not the FDA is investigating Nutro, there are many, MANY people out there whose dogs have had rather poor results when eating that food. I realize that it’s impossible to make a food that suits EVERY dog, but the number of complaints that I’ve heard about Nutro just seems too high to NOT warrant some sort of investigative action.
Comment by Queen City Dog Blog — April 24, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
The Consumer Affairs article didn’t list any FDA sources actually confirming the investigation. I couldn’t read the image of the letter they have posted. It appears to me that the FDA sent a generic form letter and the reporter tried to connect the dots.
Comment by Jason Merrihew — April 24, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Ditto on the not trusting the FDA. In case anyone missed the ConsumerAffairs.com article here is the link:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com....._foia.html
Comment by Ark Lady — April 24, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I could read the document that is posted with the April 22nd article better.. I think it is a little clearer (or maybe just me)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com.....oia02.html
Comment by Carol V — April 24, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
I agree they went a little too far on the basis of a form letter, but I am able to read the scanned image just fine, and it matches the excerpt in the article:
They then called FDA to confirm this — which is what I would have done. They say they got confirmation, but from a source who asked not to be identified because he or she wasn’t authorized to talk about the subject.
How far I’d have gone with that is hard to say without knowing who the source is. I’d have worded everything much more tentatively until someone at FDA confirmed that the FOIA denial was or wasn’t related to an investigation. This anonymous business is nonsense; someone at FDA can certainly confirm something they sent in a letter with a signature on it!
As a journalist, my immediate reaction is more to question the basis of the FDA denial of the FOIA request if there is no investigation. Do they just deny these routinely in case they ever do want to investigate someone? That is absolutely contrary to the FOIA, and outrages me.
I really want to know what FDA has to say about this now.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 24, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
well after my interactions with both the FDA and consumeraffairs…I hate to say it… but I trust the latter to get the facts right…I trust the reporter to correct the story if she has reason to. And why hasn’t FDA contacted consumeraffairs to correct it if it’s not?
Comment by Carol V — April 24, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I’m also interested in the denial of the FOIA. On a side note, I want to thank Gina, Christie and the entire Pet Connection staff for providing quality and credible journalism. As a former journalist, I am appalled by all of the single and unnamed sourced reporting we as Americans accept from our media.
Comment by Jason Merrihew — April 24, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
There is nothing unusual about an agency officially denying something that it is not ready to announce. It happens every day. There is also nothing unusual about an agency leaking information as a way of sending a signal to various interested parties.
It’s fashionable to throw mud at reporters for using unnamed sources but they are often the only ones available. That’s reality, folks.
The stories published on ConsumerAffairs.com are very complete and give considerable space to the company’s denial. ConsumerAffairs.com has no axe to grind with any company or organization; we are driven entirely by what we hear from consumers — and in this case we have hard from nearly 700 consumers that their pets (in many cases more than one per family) became ill and, in many cases, died after eating NUTRO. The consumer reports are on our site for anyone to read.
That is far more complaints than we have received about any other pet food or pet product, by the way.
There is probably no next shoe to drop until or unless the FDA or some other agency takes some sort of action against NUTRO. It’s quite possible that won’t happen. Not all investigations lead to charges.
This is a free country and everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. There’s not always going to be just one right answer.
James Hood, Editor in chief, ConsumerAffairs.com
Comment by James Hood — April 24, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Jason … it IS entirely possible for a credible story to be built on unnamed sources. Just saying. After all, President Nixon resigned following a series of revelations into the abuse of power that started with a credible, unnamed source.
James … thanks for coming in to the conversation. We’ll be continuing to keep on top of this, and will report any further developments.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
James, I didn’t mean to single Consumer Affairs out. My comment was a genralization in regards to the over abundance of single, unnamed sources in all form of media.
Comment by Jason Merrihew — April 24, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Gina…I know credible stories can be built around unnamed sources. :0) My concern is that unnamed sources are being used way too often. I’m interested in seeing what else happens from this story. I agree with Christie about being outraged if the FDA continually denies FOIA just in case they would ever want to investigate someone.
Comment by Jason Merrihew — April 24, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Im thankful Consumer Affairs has been trying to find out more information on the hundreds of Nutro complaints at their site. If FDA isnt investigating, they should be. How many complaints do there have to be to warrant an investigation from FDA? Has FDA contacted Consumer Affairs to get contact info for these people to look into it? Partly what raised concern in my mind about Nutro was when they said they had contacted most all of the people as of a certain date from the Consumer Affairs site. To the contrary, they never contacted Consumer Affairs for any of the contact info so how could they have done that, their e:mail addresses dont show, only a first name and state. Also, Consumer Affairs did not base their info soley on the letter they received from FDA, they also spoke to them in person.
I think the whole point is, there are hundreds of reports of sick or deceased pets, many with the same symptoms. So why doesnt FDA test the heck out of that food, contact the pet parents from that site for info, etc. If they find nothing, great. But to do nothing and let this continue (and it is continuing, everyday there are more reports there) is irresponsible and once again our pets are the ones to suffer. Think about it, perhaps if people had posted their info about sick pets prior to the 2007 recalls, more could have been saved.
Thank you Consumer Affairs for trying to get to the bottom of the reports.
Comment by Sandi K — April 24, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Round two of FDA response, again from Laura Alvey, regarding FOIA request, etc.:
“I can’t speak to what consumeraffairs.org reported or third party correspondence. I can tell you that Nutro Products, Inc is not the subject of an FDA investigation.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Thanks Gina, then maybe round 3 will explain why they arent releasing the documents that were requested? Is it possible that Ms. Alvey doesnt know what another FDA office might be involved in, such as Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI) or some other section of FDA?
Comment by Sandi K — April 24, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
I think I know where Consumer Affairs went wrong: they must have accidentally filed under the Freedom of DISinformation Act. Cos if they had filed under the Freedom of Information Act, FDA would have to provide some reasonable response, right? Not this nonsense we’ve seen so far.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 24, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
I would not hold my breath on any further FDA response to be any more helpful, to be honest.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Not every request for information under the FOIA has to be granted. IMO, it is possible that this information was denied because it is the kind of information that probably is never released to the public because it MAY be needed in the future for legal reasons. Denying the request does not automatically mean that there is a current investigation. The form letter does not say that there is definitely an investigation. An FDA person who is named has said there is no investigation. Maybe there should be one, but maybe we just have to accept at this time that there is not. Perhaps whatever information the FDA has will lead to one in the future.
Comment by catlady — April 24, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
it is possible that this information was denied because it is the kind of information that probably is never released to the public because it MAY be needed in the future for legal reasons.
But as a journalist and a member of the public, that supposition really isn’t good enough for me. Using that justification, government agencies could withhold almost all information related to regulatory oversight of every company and industry in America — which was exactly why we have an FOIA.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 24, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Christie, you are SO the bureaucrat’s nightmare. Which is a good thing.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 24, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
One of the best moments of the pet-food recall — “best” in reference to a nightmare being, of course, relative — was when Christie and I were on an FDA teleconference update for the media.
The FDA experts were asked if they knew of any new recalls. They said “no.” Christie was called on, and then she asked about a recall that had just been announced by the company, and could they confirm that was a new recall.
They cut the sound to everyone. Then, they opened the teleconference up and confirmed that, yes, there had been a recall of that product, just announced. It was pretty obvious they had known about it.
Soooooooooooo … you can see why we’re not wholly impressed with anything coming out of the FDA. Don’t know if there’s an investigation or not, but wouldn’t trust FDA to comment honestly on it either way.
A clean sweep can’t come quickly enough there. Maybe in the next 100 days …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 24, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Least we not forget that Nutro is not the same Nutro in any way (except the name)starting about 2 years ago. The owners of Nutro sold the business to Mars Inc. Mars is the parent company of Pedigree, and now Nutro. Turn your bags over and look at the ingredients. Every type of Max dry has Corn and/or Wheat. The exception is Weight Control, no Corn but twice the Wheat. Most of Natural Choice has Corn and Soybean Oil. Yeah, solid healthy ingredients for Dogs And Cats. Their Ultra is (over)loaded with Rice-strictly a filler. How many Dogs and Cats that you know spend hours in the wild eating Rice, Soy and Wheat? Based on the ingredients in this food now, it’s no wonder the amount of animals that are getting sick. IT’S NOT THE SAME OWNERS OR FOOD.
Comment by Mark J — April 24, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
What irritates me the most is that tax paying owners and their dogs are left in limbo again by the conduct of a publicly funded government agency, the Food and Drug Administration.
Denial of an investigation does not equate to saying the food is safe. Was nothing learned from the Menu foods debacle?
The safest and most intelligent action consumers can take is to switch their pets to another food until real information is forthcoming, not BS from a spin doctor. The FAA was forced to release their data regarding bird strikes. The FDA needs to be forced to cough up their data on Nutro. Thank you Consumer Affairs, for bringing this to public view.
Comment by Anne T — April 25, 2009 @ 2:40 am
Sadly, my lack of trust with the FDA started in March 2007…when I was told that my poisoned cats,who were then fighting to live, and the almost 20 packs of food I still had, were not an FDA issue..and why was I bothering her, the emergency operator, with it. When I asked who to call cos the news said to call the FDA, she said “I don’t know, try your dept of health, this is not our problem”…so 2 years later I have a hard time believing them….how I wish I can be proved wrong this time…
Comment by Carol V — April 25, 2009 @ 3:55 am
Shortly after the Pet Food Recall began, I contacted my state FDA. Luckily, I connected with an FDA employee who was a concerned pet owner.
The FDA employee told me (off the record) that they had been told to “feed natural” foods.
This was in stark contrast to FDA’s “for public consumption” information that the food on store shelves was safe.
So now, I take ALL “information” from the FDA with a huge grain of salt.
IMHO, the FDA’s agenda which has little to do with maintaining a safe food supply and providing accurate information to the public.
Why take a chance with a specific brand of food? There are other choices.
5CM
Comment by 5CatMom — April 25, 2009 @ 4:32 am
I’m thinking back to the recall…
How many times did the FDA give us inaccurate information?
How many times did Consumer Affairs give us inaccurate information?
That’s all.
Comment by Therese — April 25, 2009 @ 5:54 am
And to add to my rant…I was told the emergency operator did not know to take my info and to give me assistance as the recall was released “on a weekend” but if my memory is right (which so far so good) the FDA knew of this on a thursday with Menu releasing it friday…. So was the FDA closed on friday? Did they not think to prepare the emergency person taking calls for the onslaught of calls? this link does admit to FDA knowing on a thursday…I just hate being lied to…http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood.html
Just to explain why I am one of those “hysterical” pet owners…this is part of the reason…
Comment by Carol V — April 25, 2009 @ 6:01 am
Forgot to add the following:
Remember when the story broke that some infant formula contained melamine?
The day before the story was reported by national media, I called the FDA in Washington, D.C. and spoke to a “lead investigator”. At least, the person identified himself as such.
The “lead investigator” person was not aware of the “melamine rumor” and assured me that all infant formula contained no melamine (as that was a “pet food” issue) and was safe to use.
But the “lead investigator” commented on the concern in my voice, promised to check into the “rumor”, and call me back.
Next day, national media broke the story. I’m still waiting for a return call.
Comment by 5CatMom — April 25, 2009 @ 6:21 am
If the FDA isn’t going to have investigations to protect the consumer or provide information to us tax paying consumers, then let’s just get rid of them and tell folks, hey you are on your own. Use the money to treat people and pets after they get poisoned.
I’m betting that Consumer Affairs and Pet Connection and a new version of the old Itchmo could keep track of these reports a whole lot better.
In fact, I have an idea. Someone should start a web site called :”I think I was poisoned by.._______. People could post their stories about products that they think are a problem in one nice place (I know, there probably already is a site out there).
Would there be a lot of wrong stuff on the site. Sure - but at least folks could err on the side of caution until waiting until their pets, children and friends are dying for unknown reasons.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 25, 2009 @ 6:29 am
Yeahhhhh, but … problem some good people/companies/products would be unfairly targeted. By competitors, for example, or byfolks who blame sickness on the food when it was something else, etc.
Seriously … decent small businesses owned by good people have been badly hurt by anonymous sniping on review sites. Just saying …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 25, 2009 @ 6:59 am
Oh Gina - you’re just NO fun at all, LOL!
Comment by 2CatMom — April 25, 2009 @ 8:24 am
I guess my view at this point is if the FDA is not investigating Nutro, WHY NOT? How many reports does it take to warrant an investigation?
Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 25, 2009 @ 8:42 am
The line is somewhere between “we don’t care how many pets/babies/people die as long as industry is happy” and “Congress/The White House is on Line 1.”
Seriously … I know Obama has a pretty full plate, but gutting, reconceptualizing and rebuilding the USDA and FDA to serve and protect the citizens of this country would be higher on my list of priorities. Wouldn’t need to worry quite so much about health care if we could trust what put in our mouths, after all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 25, 2009 @ 8:55 am
And I am still waiting for a call back regarding how they figured out 10 ppm melamine was okay for pet food and verify that was true… I actually talked to a “Dr.” who said he would get back to me…and I called the dept that I thought would know this….this was about 2 months ago…maybe he lost my number…?
Comment by Carol V — April 25, 2009 @ 10:19 am
A new version of the ‘old’ Itchmo. Do tell what it is you see wrong with Itchmo.
Comment by JJ — April 25, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Carlol V—lost your number?
Do you think he actually bothered to write it down?
We have to keep the Pet Food industry happy, just like the USDA and FDA needs to know they are doing a good job for the Pet Food industry.
The public—well, they just feed it to their animals. If they make it, fine, and not—well, they can just get another pet. Maddening, but that is they way I feel it is going.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 26, 2009 @ 6:02 am
Comment by JJ — April 25, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
A new version of the ‘old’ Itchmo. Do tell what it is you see wrong with Itchmo.
http://www.itchmoforums.com/an.....061.0.html
Apparently they’re back up and running?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 26, 2009 @ 6:04 am
Oh wait - I remember now. Itchmo used to have an active blog in addition to the forums. Perhaps that’s what she was referring to?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 26, 2009 @ 6:07 am
JJ……I think what that poster was talking about is the front page of Itchmo where we used to post before it was shut down.
At least that’s the first thing I thought of when I read that post.
I agree with everyone……when a new product came out, I always waited to hear that it was approved by the FDA. Now those words mean absolutely nothing to me. The present FDA is no more than a cover for megacorps. They are certainly not there to help the public.
Sorry but that’s how I feel.
I don’t even want to get started on Nutro!
Comment by Jan — April 26, 2009 @ 6:19 am
C.T….lol…yeah …those last few words I typed were so full of sarcasm, my keyboard shut down!! Imagine, paying attention to a consumer…what was I thinking!?
Comment by Carol V — April 26, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Maybe I am not the most brilliant on the planet, but I am smart enough to know that if Nutro poisoned my two cats once, I better not get that food again.
I was fooled big once. THAT IS ENOUGH FOR ME!!!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 26, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Thx for clearing that up about Itchmo. Didn’t think about the main page at Itchmo, just the forums. Sandik on Itchmo does update the CA page listing the complaints about Nutro on the thread on Itchmo regularly too.
Comment by JJ — April 28, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Nutro is owned by Mars, Inc. That’s enough for me.
Fool me once, shame on you . . . .
Pedigree (Mars) recalled in 2004:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....114410165/
Cathy Brown article:
http://jvdi.org/cgi/content/full/19/5/525
Comment by 5CatMom — April 28, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
New article from consumeraffairs.com up today—-
http://www.consumeraffairs.com.....oia03.html
Comment by Carol V — April 29, 2009 @ 8:24 am
On April 28,2009 the FDA added their denial of any investigation into Nutro on their website. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Upd.....oducts.htm
Comment by Laurie — April 29, 2009 @ 5:26 pm