rockhillmanor
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/06/2003
View Profile
|
Here is another recall today for Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul produced at the SAME plant as all the previous recalls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/i........c-plant/2012/04/26/gIQAYWbnjT_story.html
Bag Code information:
http://www.chickensoupforthepetloverssoul.com/
Pretty sad that they have a permanent button on their website for recalls.
I rest my case on this dog food manufacturing plant and all the premium brands that continue to use them to produce their dog food. 
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us".
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
I found this quote from the FDA guidance document "Testing for Salmonella Species in Human Foods and Direct-Human-Contact Animal Foods" interesting.
Quote:Because there are a number of explanations why a food that is contaminated with Salmonella spp. may initially yield a negative result for Salmonella spp. in one test and subsequently yield a confirmed positive result in one or more additional tests, FDA may obtain a positive test from the same lot of food that has previously been tested and the sample found to be negative.
The BAM Salmonella test procedure (FDA gold standard test for Salmonella) takes 5-7 days to complete.
How do you know the recall button is a permanent fixture on their website vs. recently added? Websites can be readily changed.
* This post was
last
edited 04/27/12 05:05am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
To be clear, I would have these same questions no matter who the manufacturer was. The presumption here is that manufacturers can press a button and know unequivocally if their product is contaminated or not; the presumption is not accurate because these complex tests are 100% accurate.
|
rockhillmanor
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/06/2003
View Profile
|
Good Morning Mark! 
Regarding the salmonella. Here are some of my questions.
I guess they found it by random testing of the final product?
So did this come from 'one' of the ingredients?
Do individual ingredients coming into this plant have a salmonella testing procedure
in place and did they perform these tests 'before' it was used in production?
Because they 'voluntarily' recalled their product we will NEVER know the source
of the salmonella. Which of course can keep recurring if specific supplier's are providing them with tainted/inferior product.
When FDA became involved in the melamine and aflatoxin issue they TRACKED down the source/reason of its entrance into the dog food chain. Thank God they did!
This misuse/practice of this pet food company being allowed to 'voluntarily' recall to avoid FDA investigation/inspection time and time again should imho be brought to the attention of the FDA.
FDA does accept and act upon letters of complaints and concerns. I have read many regarding the beef industry. All the letters are filed, numbered and documented. From what I have seen in the beef industry, if enough letters of concern were received FDA formed a committee or a hearing to address them and I have seen FDA change policies, institute new policies AND go into a specific places and perform an investigation based on the letters received.
FDA is huge there certainly are no bells or whistles going off about one pet food company repeatedly having so many voluntary recalls. For pet owners that buy these products produced there I think they need to bring it to their attention. I think it's time to make FDA aware of it.
Regarding the link to the difficulty of eliminating salmonella completely. Here's a real interesting survey that FDA themselves did!
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManua........lmonella%20in%20dog%20food&utm_content=6
"The survey resulted in the examination of 207 subsamples, only two *of which* representing two different manufacturers were found to be positive for Salmonella. The survey included nine (9) different manufacturing plants and eight (8) different manufacturers, and covered extruded coated chunk as well as extruded coated meal type dog foods. These findings indicate that such products can be manufactured free of Salmonella contamination."
I would give my eye teeth to know if Diamond was one of the two that failed this testing!
* This post was
edited 04/27/12 09:27am by rockhillmanor *
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Since salmonella can be readily killed with heat I am less interested in the ingredients and more interested in when and where the contamination of the finished product is occurring, how the finished product is being tested (sampling plan, testing method, and lab), how the finished product is being handled (could the contamination level be too low for detection until after extended storage).
|
|
|
rockhillmanor
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/06/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:how the finished product is being handled (could the contamination level be too low for detection until after extended storage).
That's a very good point.
I would sure like to find a way to tour a dog food processing plant. I would like to see how the raw ingredients delivered, stored and how they are added to machinery for blending before the extruding process.
Perhaps we could schedule a local school field trip to gain access and tag along to see what we can see! 
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Or improper storage during shipping of finished products or at the distributor's warehouse? The manufacturer would be responsible for the recall but not the source of the issue.
What about how packaging materials are received, stored, and handled? Here is a place where contamination could occur (prior to or after receipt) and no one may have looked at this as a place that needs testing. In this case it wouldn't matter how clean your product is if the rolls of packaging material have been contaminated.
|
rockhillmanor
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/06/2003
View Profile
|
In all the recalls I have read they merely state:
"The Meta, Mo.-based company said one bag tested positive for salmonella," no reference is made as to where this bag was located.
It HAD to have been found 'within their plant' 'detected by themselves' from some sort of testing practice already in place prior to shipment, as they state no animals have become ill from it. Which is the 'only' thing that triggers a report when found at retail level. So all this points to it having salmonella before it ever left their plant.
If it were due to improper storage at distributor level why then on their last recall last week did they decide to shut down, stop shipment of all products at the Gaston plant?
And I still think its unconscionable that they are 'not' required to include the names of all the brands they produce on the same exact lines as the one they do report as a recall.
I know up until I had problems with my dog food brand I had NO idea they had switched to using Diamond, nor did I know just how MANY brands are made there.
* This post was
edited 04/27/12 12:31pm by rockhillmanor *
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
rockhillmanor wrote:And I still think its unconscionable that they are 'not' required to include the names of all the brands they produce on the same exact lines as the one they do report as a recall. Quality practices REQUIRE plants to fully clear & clean manufacturing lines during product switch-overs. You are assuming guilty until proven innocent and/or once guilty always guilty. Our regulations are not written that way.
Sampling levels (units tested per lot) and sample schemes (beginning, middle, end) for destructive testing of units of a production lot are a current topic of discussion where I work. If the defect rate (i.e. salmonella contamination) is low on a per unit (bag) basis what percentage of bags within the lot would you have them test prior to release of the lot? You cannot assume defects (contamination) are present in all units (bags) when there are defects in the lot.
|
rockhillmanor
On the Road
Senior Member
Joined: 12/06/2003
View Profile
|
Quote:Or improper storage during shipping of finished products or at the distributor's warehouse? The manufacturer would be responsible for the recall but not the source of the issue.
I agree with you on this.
I have tossed countless bags of dog food that did not smell fresh preferring not to play Russian roulette if they are still safe to feed. Premium brand stores are small and sales small so many of old and outdated bags remain on the shelves for months.
Sell by date is usually a year from production, but what I have found is anything older than one month of production is already smelling not right. Distributors of the lower selling premium brands are small and I envision bags of that dog food sitting in their trucks or basements.
Diamond dog food is sold nationwide and inventory in feed stores turns over rapidly so one would most likely get fresher product of the actual brand of Diamond food.
I read on one of the dog food sites that they are not required to wipe down machinery between runs and that there was residue of chemicals used in one food found in the food of the following production run. Which was a concern of the organic people who buy organic dog foods made there. I think the regulations you speak of are only related to human food processing?I will have to go back and see if I can find 'that' link.
Here's a very technical link to 'everything' you ever wanted to know about the equipment for making dog food.
Scroll down near the bottom to see what they are allowed to add for palatability and a touch on quality control. reference links are provided for entire article.
http://en.engormix.com/MA-feed-machinery......../pet-food-production-process-t177/p0.htm
* This post was
edited 04/27/12 12:47pm by rockhillmanor *
|
|
|
