Do you like this story?
Salmonella prompts pull of Merrick Beef Filet Squares
By Gina Spadafori
January 14, 2010
Just in from the FDA:
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to use Merrick Beef Filet Squares for dogs distributed by Merrick Pet Care with a package date of “Best By 111911” because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella.
The product was distributed nationwide through retail stores and Internet sales.
Although no illnesses associated with these products have been reported, the FDA is advising consumers in possession of these products not to handle or feed them to their pets.
In December 2009, the FDA conducted routine testing of Merrick Beef Filet Squares and detected a positive finding for Salmonella. A follow-up inspection found deficiencies in the packaging and manufacturing processes.
Salmonella can affect both humans and animals. People handling dry pet treats can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the treats or any surfaces exposed to these products. Consumers should dispose of these products in a safe manner by securing them in a covered trash receptacle.
The affected Merrick Beef Filet Squares were packaged in a 10-ounce green, red and tan re-sealable plastic bag. The “best by” date is imprinted on the top portion of the bag, which is torn off when the bag is opened. The FDA recommends that consumers who are unable to determine the “best by” date discontinue use of the product.
—
Along the same lines, we’ve been getting e-mail asking where and how to report a problem with a pet food or presciption drug. Here’s that FDA link. Everything considered, it’s well worth bookmarking.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I’m surprised that it’s Merrick. They usually have good products. I try to buy USA only, and avoid “made in China” rawhide. It’s good that the FDA is inspecting, bad that it’s a USA-made product and doubly bad because the Merrick web site has nothing on it about this recall. Shame on them!
Comment by perkysmom — January 15, 2010 @ 9:28 am
They found salmonella in Dec 2009 and can I assume they waited for a follow up visit to decide to give the warning? and what deficiencies were found..I guess we are left to our own imaginations…and some wonder why we imagine the worst…
Comment by Carol V — January 15, 2010 @ 9:55 am
I love that Merrick got on it before the FDA asked them too. If you read their press release and the FDA report you can see they went and pulled the product when they got the warning.
Just because the FDA found it in Dec, does not mean they got the report back to the company in Dec. The testing was done at end of the month and product does not go out that fast. There are holding areas where product sits while being tested. Product has to be trucked to distribution centers and then get to stores. That is at least a two week time frame.
I still think they are a great company and any producer of any product whether here or any other country, can run into issues. It is what they do if that happens that counts.
The quantity of inventory that had a concern compared to what they must produce in a day is such a small amount.
There were all kinds of US produced products that get salmonella. Green onions, tomatoes, spinach, romaine lettuce. Salmonella can and does exist in our country too.
Comment by Dana — January 15, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Dana, you’ve never posted here before, and since your comment sounds exactly like PR/astroturf damage control, I checked on your IP address (Auburn, WA) and your email address before approving the post.
Your email address is linked with dozens of accounts over the last 5 years. Since it’s a hotmail account, one can assume many of the different people using it in the past aren’t you.
But neither is there ANY recent activity anywhere on the web for a “Dana” using that email address, nor even a single mention of that email address.
Which tells me that it’s one of the bazillion recycled hotmail accounts that are out there, and you created pretty much now, to come here and spin for Merrick.
But perhaps I’m just paranoid. So let’s take what you said on its merits.
It’s complete CRAP for a company to say, wow, we reacted as soon as FDA told us we had fecal bacteria in our food!
How about TESTING YOUR FOOD YOURSELF AS PART OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES? It seems so obvious, really.
But instead, you’re going to just ship it out until a government agency taps you on the shoulder and says that they, over-worked, under-staffed, with almost no budget and no independent food safety testing AT ALL — reacting ONLY to complaints and even then, only to pretty massive complaints — found a problem with your food?
And you think that’s a “great company”?
Really?
Now, please. Don’t come here with your corporate damage control again.
If Merrick or any other company wants to defend itself, tell them to put on their big boy and big girl panties and come over here transparently and talk to us like grownups. This kind of thing is pathetically obvious.
Comment by Christie Keith — January 15, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
What Christie said.
I can’t believe how STUPID these companies still think we are.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 15, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Merrick “got on it” before FDA asked them too? The FDA press release implies it was routine testing they performed that discovered this. “Getting on it” would have been for Merrick to have been doing salmonella testing on their own BEFORE any of the product was sold. Isnt that a standard test most pet food companies would be running and why isnt Merrick? Also, I cant find any press release from Merrick anywhere, has anyone seen one? The statement above is from FDA not Merrick. I also see no statement about this recall at Merricks website nor have they stated anything about this recall at Twitter. Their last twitter post was Jan 7th.
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Not to mention, did you see this in FDA’s release? One cant help but wonder if that is intentional….oh but then Im getting into the “conspiracy theory” area if I wonder that.
“The “best by” date is imprinted on the top portion of the bag, which is torn off when the bag is opened.”
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Hi Dana, I would like to thank you for the great feedback. Please do let the public know that you do not work for Merrick. The voluntary withdrawal was only on lot number –“ 09323 best buy 111911”. There were only 84 retailers that may have received the product. The retail stores have been notified and if the retailer had this lot then the product was pulled. There are only 17 cases that have not been recovered. If you would like further information to help determine if you have this lot please visit our website or call us at 1-800-664-7387.
Comment by Sommer from Merrick Petcare — January 15, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
I edited Sommer’s name to indicate she or he is from Merrick. S/he DID disclose that fully, but it was in a section of the comment field that is masked (the email address and website fields). Just wanted to make it clear to our readers that s/he was not trying to hide his/her corporate identity.
Comment by Christie Keith — January 15, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Hey I thought my feedback was good too…but I guess they dont think so.
It just seems to me if the company had been doing what I thought was basic salmonella testing in advance of the food being put out for sale, pet owners wouldnt have to be worrying about 17 unaccounated for cases of this food. And by the way, I hate it when they say “only” 84 retailers or “only” 17 cases or “only” on lot number…its a pet-peeve of mine. To me it still means an awful lot of dogs that are put at risk because of safeguards they failed to follow.
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
I just checked and they now have something at their website and its even on the front page!
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
Oh except it says 20 cases are unaccounted for and darn it all, they are using that dreaded “voluntary withdrawal” phrase…sigh…
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Sommer, since you’re here for Merrick, will you please disclose to us whether or not “Dana” has any affiliation with your company or anyone working on your behalf?
Comment by Christie Keith — January 15, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Sommer, if Dana doesn’t work for Merrick, maybe Dana could take the time and trouble to identify him/herself.
Do not make the mistake of believing that a corporate flack telling us that a previous poster who looks and sounds exactly like a corporate flack doing astroturfing is realio trulio just an honest, spontaneous member of the public, is enough to make us believe it. You’d have a bit better credibility if you hadn’t attempted that.
And why is the “best by” date on a part of the package where it will almost certainly be torn off?
Comment by Lis — January 15, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
Dear Merrick Pet Care—-I am not wooed by the handling of the “voluntary” recall —-sure wish you would drop the term voluntary though—-remember we all know that is all that exists unless you are peddling baby formula…Hopefully that will change someday…And you dropped the ball on this one…your web site should have info on it when your product is recalled no matter how insignificant your company may think it is.
and…Your QC needs an improvement…as well as your PR
Comment by Carol V — January 15, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
Dana “they are on it” strikes again…
http://www.ohmidog.com/2010/01.....ef-treats/
Comment by Sandi K — January 15, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
strange that someone with no affiliation to Merrick is showing up at these type of blogs…just a coinky dinky I guess…
Comment by Carol V — January 15, 2010 @ 3:28 pm