I was checking on the updates on the Diamond Gaston Plant Salmonella outbreak and found out they found salmonella (different strain still not good) at their MO plant too.
Investigation of Multistate Outbreak of Human Infections
Linked to Dry Pet Food
Posted June 14, 2012
[i[...."A surveillance sample of Diamond Naturals Small Breed Adult Lamb and Rice collected by the state of Ohio from the Diamond Meta, MO plant has now yielded a positive for Salmonella Liverpool (not the outbreak strain). Diamond issued a recall for this product on May 21, 2012. See Firm Recall Press Release...." http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/CORENetwork/ucm302904.htm
Interestingly what I also found within this FDA Diamond update is a list of 'other' brands that are produced there that chose to voluntary recall their products made at the Gaston plant also.
I certainly did NOT see any public announcement of these recalls have any of you?
...."Several other companies with products manufactured at the Gaston, S.C. facility have issued voluntary recalls, since some of their products were produced at the Gaston facility during the time frame of the recalls and have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Those companies include:
"Diamond Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling its Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice dry dog food because it may be contaminated with salmonella.................................
The product was distributed to customers in 12 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. It is possible those customers may have distributed it to other states.
Customers who have purchased the following Diamond Naturals Lamb & Rice products should stop feeding it to their pets and discard i:
- 6-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D3XALW and best before Jan. 4, 2013;
- 20-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013;
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XMF and best before Jan. 3, 2013;
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013;
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D32XMS and best before Jan. 4, 2013."
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57410666/diamond-naturals-dog-food-variety-recalled/
We spend a lot of time picking out just the right healthy and high protein dog food that did NOT say it was made by Diamond.
Turns out that Blue Diamond doesn't always put their name on the bag if they bag it at their Diamond factory...they'll put the name of the dog food company that "commissioned" Blue Diamond to bag up food for them under a different name...in our case it branded as "Canidae Natural Dog Food".
Not a single ward on the bag referring to Diamond!
The only way we found out that it was being recalled is when we saw it named in in the Newspaper!
So who can you trust anymore?
My posts shouldn't be taken for factual data. They are purely fictional, for entertainment purposes and should not be constituted as actually related to scientific, technical, engineering, legal, spiritual or practical advice. Amen.
Rock,
Did you also see that the FDA's environmental test samples and ingredient test samples from the SC plant were negative for Salmonella while positive results were found in samples taken from finished food taken at the plant?
It seems like the plant and its ingredients are not as contaminated as it might seem.
Mark
*********************************************************************
Our dogs are back on Diamond Naturals, now that the SC plant is shipping new product and they are doing better (not losing weight) than on the food we got while Diamond was unavailable. I was never worried about increased likelihood of our dogs getting sick from the food; our dogs are exposed to many more likely sources of bacteria than their food (like sampling droppings from our ducks).
* This post was
last
edited 06/28/12 06:42am by BCSnob *
View edit history
rockhillmanor wrote: Do you think Diamond should have these 'OTHER' brands 'made' at their plant included and posted on their recall on their website?
NO!!!
Do you think other companies would want their supplier/contract manufacturer making statements to the public about their product?
In the real world of manufacturing, when you say it that way I have to agree.
I am just frustrated with this secrecy of dog food companies not wanting to reveal where they are produced, so we as consumers can be aware of if our pet food is produced where a potentially dangerous recall has occurred.
Perhaps the answer to this is we need to start making our concerns heard that on all pet food products that the labeling include:
"Manufactured by..."
I know for me personally with the Solid Gold line, I asked them straight out if they changed manufacturers and they lied to me twice until they finally said they did change manufactures but refused to name the plant. Kinda makes you wonder 'why' they don't want to name the plant.
My experience has been that if the kibble changes in size, shape and/or color they HAVE changed manufacturers. Each plant has its own specialized equipment and none are exactly the same.
Disclosing the information you want also discloses this to competitors, which may or may not give competitors a business advantage.
Changes in kibble size or shape do indicate a change in equipment due to a change in manufacturer or possibly new/different equipment at the same manufacturer.
I am just frustrated with this secrecy of dog food companies not wanting to reveal where they are produced, so we as consumers can be aware of if our pet food is produced where a potentially dangerous recall has occurred.
It's no different than any other aspect of our lives; and Mark is right - the company who's charging you a premium price for their product does NOT want you finding out it's the same product sold by Brand X at half the price. You see it all the time in grocery stores - same product, same bottle; just a different label slapped on the front and money saved if you buy the "off brand".
While we're on the subject of Salmonella in animal feeds....
Quote: Surveillance of Salmonella Prevalence in Animal Feeds and Characterization of the Salmonella Isolates by Serotyping and Antimicrobial Susceptibility
X. Li,1 L.A. Bethune,2 Y. Jia,3 R.A. Lovell,1 T.A. Proescholdt,1 S.A. Benz,1 T.C. Schell,1 G. Kaplan,1 and D.G. McChesney1
1Office of Surveillance and Compliance, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.
2Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachusetts.
3Office of Biotechnology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Abstract
This article presents the surveillance data from the Feed Contaminants Program (2002–2009) and Salmonella Assignment (2007–2009) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which monitor the trend of Salmonella contamination in animal feeds. A total of 2,058 samples were collected from complete animal feeds, feed ingredients, pet foods, pet treats, and supplements for pets in 2002–2009. These samples were tested for the presence of Salmonella. Those that were positive for Salmonella underwent serotyping and testing for antimicrobial susceptibility. Of the 2,058 samples, 257 were positive for Salmonella (12.5%). The results indicate a significant overall Salmonella reduction (p?0.05) in animal feeds from 18.2% (187 samples tested) in 2002 to 8.0% (584 samples tested) in 2009. Among these samples, feed ingredients and pet foods/treats had the most significant reduction (p < or = 0.05). Of the 45 Salmonella serotypes identified, Salmonella Senftenberg and Salmonella Montevideo were the top two common serotypes (8.9%). Of the 257 Salmonella isolates obtained, 54 isolates (21%) were resistant to at least one antimicrobial. The findings provide the animal feed industries with Salmonella prevalence information that can be used to address Salmonella contamination problems. Our findings can also be used to educate pet owners when handling pet foods and treats at home to prevent salmonellosis.
Offline
