Do you like this story?
Nature’s Variety: How to do a recall right
By Gina Spadafori
March 10, 2010
No food or drug can ever be made 100 percent safe, and that’s a fact.
I’m OK with that, because life can’t ever be made 100 percent safe, and that’s a fact, too. Honestly, who would want life to be 100 percent safe? Not me, for sure, because that would be awfully damn dull.
I know that even under the best of circumstances food will occasionally be contaminated and need to be recalled. I can forgive a company for that, although my level of forgiveness will vary depending on how likely the company was to know that there was a problem, and how much of the resulting problem was due to accident, or to a decision after doing the math that a few dead pets (or people) weren’t worth the cost of making changes.
When there is a problem, though, I expect — no, I demand — that a company make a real, true and honest effort to let everyone know about it, not dump-and-run a media release late on a Friday night. I want the information front and center on company’s Web site, and I want to see that the company is making at least as big an effort to get bad product back as they did to market their goods in the first place.
And then I want a company to be honest about what happened, how it happened, and have a plan for getting the problem fixed so the problem — at least not that problem — won’t happen again.
With all that in mind, I say this: Nature’s Variety is a case in point of how to handle a recall right.
They never hid their recall notices — always the first thing you saw on their Web site. They reached out to retailers, purchasers, media and bloggers to make sure the word got out. And now, they’ve reviewed their internal manufacturing process and are making changes:
… Nature’s Variety now uses High Pressure Pasteurization on our Raw Frozen Diets as a unique process to kill pathogenic bacteria through high-pressure, water-based technology. Having incorporated this state-of-the-art technology on our Freeze Dried Raw products in late 2009, we were able to confidently implement the process universally on all Raw Frozen Diets after the February 11, 2010 recall in order to further enhance food safety. Nature’s Variety also utilizes a test and hold protocol to ensure that all High Pressure Pasteurized Raw Frozen Diets test negative for harmful bacteria before being released for sale.
Let’s repeat that:
Nature’s Variety also utilizes a test and hold protocol to ensure that all High Pressure Pasteurized Raw Frozen Diets test negative for harmful bacteria before being released for sale.
You know what makes me sad? That this sort of thing is news, not standard operating procedure in the food industry. I have hope, though, that it increasingly will be. Or that we can make sure it will be, by law.
In the meantime, kudos to Nature’s Variety for behaving in such an overtly responsible way.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
When you circle the wagons, you MAKE ME start shooting these arrows.
Seriously, when will the rest of ‘em get that.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:25 am
I do applaud Nature’s Variety’s business response here, I truly do — with only the exception that they keep using that word “voluntary” to describe their recalls, as if there’s any other kind. But that’s nitpicking.
But pasteurized food isn’t really raw anymore, at least not in a sense that most raw-food-feeders are likely to accept.
Test and hold I definitely applaud. All food producers should do that, not just for raw products and not just for pet food.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 10, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Oh, I know, Christie. But I also like that NV disclosed the changes they were making, so people can make an informed choice. They didn’t just say, “we’re making changes blah blah.” They said what those changes are.
As for the “voluntary” recall thing: Total agree. The FDA needs mandatory recall powers so this corporatespeak crap goes away.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 10, 2010 @ 10:49 am
I am also very glad to see them announcing the recalls both thru PR newswire and at their site. I still have a question though. In the last couple of days they just expanded their initial recall because 2 more lot dates tested positive for salmonella. http://www.naturesvariety.com/.....FINAL3.pdf
Im just wondering why it took close to a month to show additional products tested positive? I dont know how long such a process takes but a month went by between Feb and March that pets were exposed to a potential problem and that is always a concern to me. They also now say “Some pet illnesses have been reported in association with these date codes, although we are still investigating whether the reported illnesses were caused by the food.” That kind of statement always bothers me, while I know they need to investigate and certainly not necessarily all reports they receive would be related to the food, it just kind of leaves a yucky taste in my mouth, it just has a tone of not wanting to take responsiblity or it gives the idea that the pet owners are going to have to prove it was the food which I imagine might be hard to do, even if you have leftover food. I suppose one could always say there is no way to prove it.
They are apparently now recalling all of the products from a certain date forward so that is good, which will help prevent rolling recalls. I think the overall concern I have is not just with Natures Variety but with all the pet food companies. Im tired of our pets being the “testing subjects” for food. Prevention can go a long way. In this case, they didnt have test and hold in place initially but do now. Test and hold is not new. They didnt have HPP in place but do now. HPP is not a new process. So it sounds like they are now putting some safeguards in place which is good.
Comment by Sandi K — March 10, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
I should add that it has to be expensive to recall all the products they are now recalling since the findings of additional affected lots. Going forward it sounds like they are trying.
Comment by Sandi K — March 10, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
I’m pleased with how Nature’s Variety handled this recall, especially since I just started feeding raw, and this is one of two brands I am using. As someone new to raw feeding, it is making me a little nervous about continuing to trust the brand, and I’m also wondering how many of the nutrients will be processed out of the food with the new pasteurization process. But as the 2007 pet food recalls have shown us so tragically, there is no guarantee that any one food is 100% safe, and I suppose it comes down to being an educated consumer. Companies like Nature’s Variety at least make that a little easier by being honest, and quick, about disclosing problems.
Comment by Ingrid King — March 10, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Ingrid, I suspect that NV will add whatever they feel might be lost nutritionally in the pasteurization process. NV is recalling for possible contamination, not actual presence of salmonella as I understand it. Unless the salmonella is confirmed, isolated and tested, it likely is a strain a dog’s digestion can handle with no problem. The problem is us humans who are more susceptible to Salmonella spp.
So how/why does salmonella spp keep turning up in our meats, especially poultry? The poultry used in dog food comes through the same facilities as the chicken designated by the USDA as being fit for human consumption. As the poet says’ ay, there’s the rub”. Our slaughtering practices leave a great deal to be desired not only in the way the animals are ‘dispatched’ but how the carcasses are treated as they make their way down the disassembly line. It’s all about saving a buck, not food handling safety. The carcasses that are too bruised and damaged to make into a neatly wrapped supermarket styrofoam tray, guess where they go? As Marion Nestle points out, it’s all the same food supply, so the salmonella NV is concerned about could possibly be in that chicken wing you just ate from KFC, thanks to how we prepare our meat.
Comment by Anne T. — March 10, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
I do not feed raw as my dogs’ staple diet, but do give them the chicken medallions from Natures Variety as a treat. I was e-mailed the recall. Of course, I had just given the dogs a couple of medallions each about 20 minutes before I opened my e-mail. I checked the UPC and lo and behold the number matched the recall. :-( It was a new bag and I hadn’t given them any out of it before that day. That was a couple of days ago. The two Flat-coats are doing fine, but the golden has some very loose stools. Is it from the medallions or could the puppy have eaten something else? More than likely, the later. I am not worried as the Metronidazole seems to be clearing it up. But, the bags will be going back to the store I purchased them at. I am hoping they have a more recent bag I can purchase as Navarre is addicted to them. I commend Nature’s Variety for getting the info to me so quickly and also sending coupons for future purchases. I will still feed it as they were open and honest about the recall and are doing what they can to fix the problem.
Comment by Jill — March 11, 2010 @ 10:01 am
I have another example of a pet food recall done right. Just before the melamine recall, I purchased some canned dog food from Costco that was the Kirkland (their in-house generic) brand. Shortly after the melamine recall started, I got a Postcard in the mail from the company that made the dog food saying that, according to Costco records, I had purchased dog food of a specific lot and that, since they had determined that the company had received a suspect batch of wheat gluten during the time the lot that I had purchased was made, they wished me to not feed the dog food and return it to the store for a complete refund. They also stated that no pets had been reported with any illness from eating their brand of pet food but that they didn’t want to take any risks. What impressed me was that the companies (Costco and the contracted firm making the dog food) had taken the time and effort to search their database for every purchase of that food and taken the expense to notify everyone who had purchased it by mail. Now, I am not saying that Costco does everything right, but they got my gold star for corporate responsibility in that recall.
Comment by Jan — March 11, 2010 @ 11:49 am
During the 2007 pet food recall, we also found Costo to be concerned, responsible and pro-active. Their CEO even called us to make sure we had all the information we needed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
Doesn’t Costco also test all of their ground meats?
Comment by straybaby — March 11, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
As a retailer, I’ve really appreciated how NV has handled this recall. We have gotten daily email updates from them, phone calls and visits from our rep. They are determined to help make sure everyone is informed, that the product is off the shelves and that we are constantly updated. The word that comes to mind is transparency - something we don’t normally tend to get a whole lot of in the food industry.
Comment by Joy — March 12, 2010 @ 6:31 am
Joy, great to hear from you again. Your detective work deep in the FDA import docs truly helped expose the scope of the recall. You saved a lot of lives, of this I have no doubt.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 12, 2010 @ 6:58 am
Wow Gina, thank you! :-) Yea, the 2007 recall really changed me as a consumer and as a retailer. It’s sickening to me that we practically have to be detectives just to stay informed and safe about food for our pets and for ourselves. This NV recall is the first time I’ve had a food on my shelves that has been recalled. I’m pretty shook up about it but do appreciate the company for how differently they’re handling it compared to what I’ve seen in this industry.
One thing I am learning that’s kind of troubling is how much of the responsibility of a product recall is left with the retailer. Personally, I have pulled ALL (not just the recall dates)NV products off my shelf for now until I learn more (maybe I overreact?) but honestly, there is nothing I know of - except my own personal ethics - forcing me to comply.
I spoke to a retailer yesterday who STILL hadn’t removed the recalled product from his shelves! He (the owner) was out of town and just felt it would be best to deal with it himself rather than having his employees do the destruction certificates, signage, etc. I’m shocked by this. I don’t know why but I’ve never really questioned this; I’ve assumed that any retailer would be eager to get a potentially unsafe product off their shelves immediately. Ya know?
Comment by Joy — March 12, 2010 @ 7:17 am
I will be returning mine to the store I purchased them from this weekend. It will be interesting to see how they are handling the recall. I will have to check out their freezer to see if there are still some on the shelf.
Comment by Jill — March 12, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Ive been thinking about transparency and education, both things pet owners want. I recently read a blog owned by a pet food store owner that was talking about the NV recall. There were a couple of readers saying they could have sworn that there were some other recalls and the store owner,who said they were good friends with one of the company reps & had asked them, said there were no prior recalls and the companies record was unblemished. I know as a pet owner, that I want to know about recalls as well as withdrawals & some might not be aware that although they might be labeled different names, both can involve removing food from store shelves. If its bad enough to be removed from store shelves I want to know about it so I can decide for myself if I want to continue feeding that product whether its a recall or a withdrawal. Im sure others do as well so I posted links to the past product withdrawals. The store owner removed my post.
Comment by Sandi K — March 12, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
Just wanted to let you know your post is now selling people on the PR firm that handled this recall. The same PR firm that names one of their objectives as “Negotiate with FDA to change product status from a mandatory recall to a voluntary withdrawal, and reduce negative brand perceptions among retailers and consumers.”
Among their “results” is the following: “Successfully intercepted and reversed regulatory onslaught (FDA)”
Because what all pet owners want is WEAKER regulation of the pet food industry by the FDA.
You’ll be extra happy they’re using the this:
“”Nature’s Variety is a
case in point of how to
handle a recall right.
They reached out to
retailers, purchasers,
media and bloggers to
make sure the word got
out.”
Gina Spadafori,
Blogger, Pet Connection”
http://www.jdpr.com/image-uploads/Naturesv.pdf
Comment by Kim — February 21, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
What do you want, Kim? For us NOT to indicate how we think things should be done, in case it gives aid and comfort to the enemy?
Comment by Christie Keith — February 21, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
Christie, you misunderstood.
My point was twofold. First, that they were using PetConnection as a marketing tool for their PR firm. I assumed that Gina would want to know this.
Second, while Nature’s Variety got a lot of praise for this recall, I’ve learned what this company is really all about. Now here is a “case study” put out by JDPR clearly spelling out to the public how proud they are that they were able to help Nature’s Variety weaken the system when the system actually WORKED by identifying a problem and forcing a recall.
Thanks to Nature’s Variety, raw foods apparently are no longer in the “mandatory recall” column… they are in the “voluntary withdrawal” column.
I assumed that this would irritate most pet owners…
Comment by Kim — February 21, 2011 @ 8:42 pm
I think the PR firm is showing its ignorance anyway, since FDA doesn’t have mandatory recall authority over HUMAN food, let alone pet food. I really have no idea what they’re talking about. I’ve written them and asked, and will post their response.
And yes, I’m sure Gina will want to know. I just didn’t get what point you were making.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 21, 2011 @ 8:54 pm
I was told by a representative of Nature’s Variety that the salmonella recall was forced by the FDA back when it was going on.
Our store had to submit an FDA form detailing the product we destroyed and the packaging had to be handed over to Nature’s Variety. We even had to photograph the destroyed product.
Comment by Kim — February 21, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
I wasn’t criticizing PetConnection in any way - let me be clear here. I was ticked that this firm had used Gina’s quote the way it did.
Also, I should point out that this is the only recall we ever had to submit documentation for - including the 2007 mela-recall. Normally we just toss it and fill out a destruction form for the company - how many and what size of each date code, so we could be reimbursed.
Comment by Kim — February 21, 2011 @ 9:12 pm
“Force” is misleading. “Pressure” is all the FDA has the legal authority to do… again, even on HUMAN food. But pet food companies always add that “voluntary” — including Nature’s Variety, which we’ve called them (and everyone else) on before. It’s just marketing b.s., as ALL food recalls are “voluntary.”
Anyway… check this out: http://goo.gl/Fmq7y
Comment by Christie Keith — February 21, 2011 @ 9:22 pm
This just doesn’t work me up all that much. In fact, I hope this company gets more business — although yeah, I’m not that happy with the implied endorsement.
See, I’m looking at it from the point of view of all the BAD responses we’ve seen from companies. The impulse to hide bad news and even to lie typically comes from management that just panics and falls into circle the wagon mode.
It’s a disaster for people who need the information NOW because lives depend on it.
But it’s even bad for the company. A good PR firm advises as much openness as possible, because when you hide the truth it looks even worse when the truth comes out — and it always does, in the end.
So … weird as it seems to be quoted in a sales pitch for a PR firm, I stand by what I said: They did do a good job.
Misrepresenting the “we made it not be a recall” stuff, though, it not cool, but I’d honestly chalk that up to the spin machine.
That said, I’m really glad this was brought to everyone’s attention. Industry folks need to realize that NOTHING is secret forever, and act on that truth.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 22, 2011 @ 8:18 am
Thanks ladies!
It’s understandable that it would irritate me far more than anyone else… I’ve been fighting with these guys since the end of December.
Comment by Kim — February 22, 2011 @ 11:05 am