Melamine Found In Wal-Mart Bestros Chicken Jerky Strips For Dogs

Bestros Chicken Jerky StripsThe Associated Press is reporting that tests of two Chinese brands of dog food treats sold at Wal-Mart stores found traces of melamine.

Wal-Mart pulled two China-made dog treats from their shelves: Chicken Jerky Strips from Import-Pingyang Pet Product Co. and Chicken Jerky from Bestros Trading on July 26 due to customer’s complaints about pets becoming ill from eating the treats.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Deisha Galberth said 17 sets of tests done on the products found melamine.

“There were very small amounts of melamine found,” Galberth said. “The amounts were so small the laboratory recommended more testing.”

Galberth added that she couldn’t say at this point if the amount of melamine found would be enough to sicken or kill a pet that ate the tainted products.

She further added that Wal-Mart would expand its testing of the chicken jerky strips to see if tests find melamine in the product.

As of now, no formal recall has been issued.

(Pictured: Bag of Bestros Chicken Jerky Strips purchased from K-Mart)

A statement Tuesday by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said customers should be especially wary of jerky from Shanghai Bestro Trading with the UPC number 0087784900006 and item number 839751. Customers who have bought the products are urged to return it to the store for a full refund.

As of today, the FDA has not listed the products on their recall website. In 2005, the FDA put an import alert on some of the pet food products from Pingyang Pet Product Co. because of salmonella contamination.

Galberth said she did not know about Pingyang Pet Product Co. being on FDA’s import alert list previously. She said they are working with the FDA and manufacturers.

“Generally, we won’t do a pull-and-hold unless most stores are impacted,” she said. “There’s a high likelihood many of our stores would have been impacted by this one.”

Source: Forbes

(Thanks menusux)

71 thoughts on “Melamine Found In Wal-Mart Bestros Chicken Jerky Strips For Dogs

  1. I wanted to write because I purchased dog biscuits at Ross store recently. They were labeled Fido’s Cookies. They were in a plastic container (for gift giving) with manufacturer label. No ingredients label or where they are made. I gave one each to each of my dogs Saturday night. They reluctantly ate them, but only after I cut them up smaller. My dogs especially did not like the white “icing or the sprinkles dipped on one side of these dog bone shaped biscuits. The next morning, I gave my Cavalier another of these biscuits for good behavior. My Yorkie wasn’t up yet. My Cavalier immediately threw up this entire biscuit a few minutes after she chewed it. She has been eating grass every chance she gets since. She does not seem ill or in distress. I am just concerned about these biscuits. I called the company in Colorado. Still don’t have any explanation as to ingredients. A rep at Fido’s Cookies said they are made in Colorado. Couldn’t explain the ingredients sticker not being on packaging. I am just wondering if anyone else has had this problem with these dog biscuits. I also put a complaint in to Ross Stores. TIA, Selene

  2. Right, we’re all supposed to feel what?
    A trace amount of melamine *the byproduct of several pesticides* has been found?

    Oh Please, tell me you’re testing for pesticides too.. not just melamine.

    Enough of the stupidity is enough by the pet fooc industry is ENOUGH.

    If these companies can’t understand that the pet foods are still making animals still and are still so blatantly ignorant as to think that melamine is THE cause, then they need to have their pet food products put in a graveyard, NOT OUR PETS!!

  3. Right, we’re all supposed to feel what?
    A trace amount of melamine *the byproduct of several pesticides* has been found?

    Oh Please, tell me you’re testing for pesticides too.. not just melamine.

    Enough of the stupidity is enough by the pet food industry is ENOUGH.

    If these companies can’t understand that the pet foods are still making animals still and are still so blatantly ignorant as to think that melamine is THE cause, then they need to have their pet food products put in a graveyard, NOT OUR PETS!!

  4. overlook the lack of editing please – I’m beyond the ability to think straight coming back here this morning and reading all this crap from pet food companies and our poor pets still getting this crap, the redactions and the BS and the delays in letting us know… There is no rug that can conceal this much stupidity on the part of pet food companies.

    May all their bottom lines collapse!!!

  5. The mealy mouthed statements and non truths and evasive behavior by the reps mentioned is absolutely infuriating. “Such small amts of Melamine we don’t know if it would affect any pets”. OH MY GOD. Dogs and cats are suffering and dying right now!!!!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE TRUST THESE PEOPLE EVER AGAIN? I for one cannot. Can no one see the light yet! GOD HELP these pets whose owners just can’t get it. I feel so sorry for the innocent animals who are and will be victims of greed, ignorance and indifference. I try and try to tell pet owners where ever I go and when friends come to visit, but so many are still in denial. Most of them say, “Oh, I thought the food was allright now” WAKE UP!!!!!!!!! There comes a time, since we know that the pet food companies and the outlets that sell the crap are not going to be responsible, THEN WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!

  6. I guess melamine is the go to bad guy now.

    First they said they found traces but are going back to test for melamine???? From the article on the Chihuahua that died it sounded more like it was probably salmonella.

  7. If a small amount of melamine is not supposed to be harmful according to the FDA’s dillution factor. Why did these dogs die? Why hasn’t the FDA issued a recall? Is there another chemical involved, such as acetaminophen, malathion ,cynauric acid?

    Why is the FDA remaining silent? What company in China is the FDA trying to protect is it American owned or are they trying tp protect trade with China?

  8. Wow, this is getting pathetic.

    Isn’t this the 3rd, 4th, 5th, something recall in the past 6 months? China is so worried about people not liking their products, but they are obviously not doing anything at all to make them safer.

  9. Thank you to those who are sharing their condolances.

    I must bring up a few important notes for others to consider.

    FDA..
    WAS not even notified by Wal-Mart of the complaints, or concerns.
    Personally, my experience with FDA, through this ordeal, is that they, have acted swiftly on the complaints and concerns, that have been forwarded to them.

    Jobs, manufacturers & current food Source ..
    Hundreds of manufactures that were originated here in the US, have all moved to Mexico, or China, and China’s goal is to become the #1 food packaging and source in the world.
    ITS sad.. That our president, continues to allow CHINA to import here.
    There is a huge list, from 2006 of items haulted or rejected into the US, after FDA inspected:

    Refusal Actions by FDA as Recorded in OASIS
    ________________________________________
    Country of Origin Entry # DOC Line Suffix
    Manufacture Name
    City / ISO Country Code District
    Product Code Product Description
    Date Reason
    ________________________________________

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 1
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – TWIST STICK
    27-SEP-2006 SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 2
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEWS – THICK BACON STIK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 3
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – KOTTED BONE
    27-SEP-2006 SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 4
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – CHOCOLATE LOLIPOP STICK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 5
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – PRESSED BONE STICK
    27-SEP-2006 SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 6
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – SHISH KEBAB
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 7
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – CHICKEN LEG STICK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 8
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – PRESSED BONE STICK
    27-SEP-2006 SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 9
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – ICE CREAM STICK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 10
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOGF CHEW – TACO MUNCHY
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 11
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – SUPER SIZED TRIMMED HOOVES
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 12
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – TURKEY LEG STICK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 13
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – RAW HIDE PRESSED STICK
    27-SEP-2006 SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 14
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – ICE CREAM BAR STICK
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 15
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOW CHEW – COCKTAIL MUNCHY ROLL
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    China (Mainland) 385-0069810-5 1 16
    PINGYANG PET-TOYS INDUSTRIAL CO.
    WENZHOU CN-33, CN 325405 SEA-DO
    72BGB05 DOG CHEW – STRIPED TOW TONE MUNCHY BONE
    27-SEP-2006 UNSAFE COL
    SALMONELLA

    ________________________________________

    VIOLATION CODE TRANSLATION
    Revised: 03-Aug-2007 07:58 AM

    ________________________________________

    Reason: ***
    Section: 402(a)(5), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The food appears to be, in whole or in part, the
    product of a diseased animal or of an animal which has died
    otherwise than be slaughter.

    Reason: ADDED BULK
    Section: 402(b)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The food appears to have a substance added to, mixed
    or packed with it so as to increase its bulk or weight, or
    reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or
    of greater value than it is.

    Reason: AFLATOXIN
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a mycotoxin, a
    poisonous and deleterious substance which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: AGR RX
    Section: 801(d)(1),(2); IMPORTATION RESTRICTED
    Charge: The article appears to be a prescription drug
    manufactured in the U.S. and offered for import by other
    than the manufacturer and reimportation does not appear to
    have been authorized by the Secretary for use in a medical

    Reason: AGRINSULIN
    Section: 801(d)(1),(2);IMPORTATION RESTRICTED
    Charge: The article appears to be composed wholly or partly
    of insulin manufactured in the US and offered for import by
    other than the manufacturer and reimportation does not
    appear to have been authorized by the Secretary for a

    Reason: ALCOHOL
    Section: 402(d)(2), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a confectionary that bears
    or contains alcohol in excess of 1/2 of 1% by volume derived
    solely from the use of flavoring extracts.

    Reason: ALLERGEN
    Section: 403(w) 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: the label fails to declare all major food allergens
    present in the product, as required by section 403(w)(1).

    Reason: ANDRO
    Section: 402(f)(1)(B),801(a)(3);ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to declare
    and/or contain androstenedione, a new dietary ingredient for
    which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable

    Reason: ANTIBIOTIC
    Section: 502(l), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The drug appears to purport, or represented as,
    being composed wholly or partly of an antibiotic and it does
    not appear to be from a batch with respect to which a
    certificate or release has been issued pursuant to section

    Reason: BACTERIA
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a poisonous and
    deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    health. Contains

    Reason: BANNED
    Section: 501(g), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a banned device.

    Reason: BIO TOXIN
    Section: 801
    Charge:

    Reason: BIO TOXIN
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3), Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to contain
    a poisonous and deleterious substance which would ordinarily
    render it injurious to health. Appears to contain

    Reason: BSE DRUGS
    Section: 501(a)(2)(A), 801(a)(1); Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(1) in that it appears to have
    been prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions
    whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: BSE FILTH
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be unfit
    for food.

    Reason: BUTTER
    Section: 402(e), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be oleo/margarine or butter
    with raw materials consisting in whole or in part of a
    filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or the article is
    otherwise be unfit for food.

    Reason: CALIBRATED
    Section: 502(f)(1); 801(a)(3), misbranding
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal in that it is
    calibrated in units not commonly used in the United States

    Reason: CHLORAMP
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a food additive,
    namely chloramphenicol, that is unsafe within the meaning of
    21 U.S.C. 348.

    Reason: COL ADDED
    Section: 501(a)(4)(A), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain, for the
    purpose of coloring only, a color additive which is unsafe
    within the meaning of Section 721(a).

    Reason: COLOR
    Section: 601%
    Charge:

    Reason: COLOR LBLG
    Section: 602(e), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The color additive appears to not have its packaging
    and labeling in conformity with such requirements as issued
    under section 721.

    Reason: COLOR LBLG
    Section: 403(k), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to contain an artificial
    coloring and it fails to bear labeling stating that fact.

    Reason: CONCEALED
    Section: 402(b)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears to be food which has damage or
    inferiority concealed in any manner.

    Reason: CONTAINER
    Section: 402(a)(6), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The container appears to be composed, in whole or in
    part, of a poisonous or deleterious substance which may
    render the contents injurious to health.

    Reason: CONTAINER
    Section: 601(d), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The container appears to be composed, in whole or in
    part, of a poisonous or deleterious substance which may
    render the contents injurious to health.

    Reason: CONTAINER
    Section: 501(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The container appears to be composed, in whole or in
    part, of a poisonous or deleterious substance which may
    render the contents injurious to health.

    Reason: CONTAM CAN
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be held in a container
    containing a poisonous or deleterious substance which may
    render it injurious to health.

    Reason: COSM COLOR
    Section: 601(e), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The cosmetic appears to not be a hair dye, and is,
    bears, or contains a color additive which is unsafe within
    the meaning of section 721(a).

    Reason: COSM MISB
    Section: 602(a) & 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The cosmetic’s labeling appears to be false or
    misleading within the meaning of Section 201(n).

    Reason: COSM MISB2
    Section: 602(a) & 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears that its
    labeling is false or misleading in any particular
    [Misbranding, Section 602(a)].

    Reason: COSMETIC
    Section: 601(c), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be an ingredient in a
    cosmetic product and may have been prepared packed or held
    under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become
    contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: COSMETLBLG
    Section: 5(c)(3)(A); 801(a)(3) Misbranding
    Charge: It appears the label does not bear the common or
    usual name of the cosmetic.

    Reason: COSMETLBLG
    Section: 5(c)(3)(B); 801(a)(3) Misbranding
    Charge: It appears that the cosmetic consists of two or more
    ingredients and the label does not list the common or usual
    name of each ingredient.

    Reason: COUMARIN
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3), Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain Coumarin, a
    poisonous or deleterious substance, which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: CSTIC LBLG
    Section: 602(a) and/or (b), and/or (c), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The labeling appears to fail to comply with cosmetic
    labeling requirments of Section 602(a), and/or (b), and/or
    (c), and as identified by 21 C.F.R. Part 701.

    Reason: CYCLAMATE
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C); 801(a)(3)
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain cyclamate, an
    unsafe food additive within the meaning of Section 409

    Reason: DANGEROUS
    Section: 502(j), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be dangerous to health when
    used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or
    duration, prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the
    labeling thereof.

    Reason: DE IMP GMP
    Section: 801(a)(1); NON CONFORMING MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
    Charge: The methods used in, or the facilities or controls
    used for the manufacture, packing, storage or installation
    do not conform to the requirements under section 520(f).

    Reason: DE/RX KIT
    Section: 801(d)(1),(2); IMPORTATION RESTRICTED
    Charge: The article appears to be a combination medical
    device/prescription drug kit for which the prescription drug
    component was manufactured in the U.S., is offered for
    import by other than the manufacturer, and reimportation

    Reason: DEVICE GMP
    Section: 501(h), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The methods, facilities, or controls used for the
    article’s manufacture, packing, storage. or installation do
    not conform with applicable requirements under section
    520(f)(1) or a condition prescribed by an order under

    Reason: DEVICEGMPS
    Section: 501(h), 801(a)(1); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The methods, facilities, or controls used for the
    article’s manufacture, packing, storage, or installation do
    not conform with applicable requirements under section
    520(f)(1) or a condition prescribed by an order under

    Reason: DEVNOEXPT
    Section: 501(i), 801(a)(3)
    Charge:

    Reason: DIET INGRE
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be for
    use as an ingredient in a dietary supplement and appears to
    be or may be otherwise unfit for food.

    Reason: DIETARY
    Section: 403(j), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article purports to be or is represented for
    special dietary uses and its label does not appear to bear
    the nutritional information required by regulation.

    Reason: DIETARYLBL
    Section: 403(s)(2)(B), 801(a)(3), misbranded
    Charge: The label/labeling of the dietary supplement fails
    to identify the product by using the term “dietary
    supplement”.

    Reason: DIOXIN
    Section: 402(a)(1),402(a)(2)(A),402(a)(2)(C)(i),801(a)(3)-Adulterated
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain dioxins
    and/or PCB compounds, poisonous or deleterious substances
    and/or unapproved food additives which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: DIRECTIONS
    Section: 502(f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to lack adequate directions for
    use.

    Reason: DIRSEXMPT
    Section: 502(f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to lack adequate directions for
    use, and the article does not appear to be exempt from such
    requirements.

    Reason: DISEASED
    Section: 402(a)(5), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The food appears to be, in whole or in part, the
    product of a diseased animal or of an animal which has died
    otherwise than by slaughter.

    Reason: DR QUALITC
    Section: 501(c), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The drug appears to be represented as not being
    recognized in an official compendium and appears its
    strength differs from or its quality or purity falls below,
    that which it purports or is represented to possess.

    Reason: DR QUALITY
    Section: 501(b), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be represented as a drug the
    name of which is recognized in an official compendium and
    its strength appears to differ from or its quality or purity
    appear to fall below the standards set forth in such

    Reason: DR QUALITY
    Section: 501b
    Charge:

    Reason: DRUG COLOR
    Section: 502(m), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a color additive the
    intended use of which is for the purpose of coloring only,
    and its packaging and labeling do not conform to regulations
    issued under section 721.

    Reason: DRUG GMPS
    Section: 501(a)(2)(B), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears that the methods used in or the
    facilities or controls used for manufacture, processing,
    packing, or holding do not conform to or are not operated or
    administered in conformity with current good manufacturing

    Reason: DRUG NAME
    Section: 502(e)(1); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: The article appears to be a drug and fails to bear
    the proprietary or established name and/or name and quantity
    of each active ingredient.

    Reason: DULCIN
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C); 801(a)(3)
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain dulcin, an
    unsafe food additive within the meaning of Section 409

    Reason: DV NAME
    Section: 502(e)(2); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: The article appears to be a device and its labeling
    fails to bear the proprietary or established name.

    Reason: DV QUALITY
    Section: 501(c); 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be a device whose quality
    falls below that which it purports or is represented to
    possess.

    Reason: EPHEDALK
    Section: 801(a)3), 402(f)(1); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The product is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it is a dietary
    supplement or a dietary ingredient that appears to contain
    ephedrine alkaloids, which presents an unreasonable risk of

    Reason: EXCESS SUL
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain excessive sulfites, a
    poisonous and deleterious substance which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: EXPIRED
    Section: 501(c); 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: the product strength differs from, or its purity or
    quality falls below, that which it purports or is
    represented to possess in that it is past its labeled
    expiration date.

    Reason: FAILS STD
    Section: 501(e), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a device which is subject
    to a performance standard established under Section 514 and
    does not appear to be in all respects in conformity with
    such standard.

    Reason: FALSE
    Section: 403(a)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: the labeling appears to be false and misleading in
    any particular.

    Reason: FALSE
    Section: 502(a), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The labeling for this article appears to be false or
    misleading in that it fails to reveal a material fact

    Reason: FALSECAT
    Section: 403(t), 801(a)(3)
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be
    misbranded because it purports to be or is represented as
    catfish but is not a fish classified within the family

    Reason: FEED & NAD
    Section: 501(a)(6), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be an animal feed bearing or
    containing a new animal drug, and such animal feed is unsafe
    within the meaning of section 512.

    Reason: FILTH
    Section: 601(b), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The cosmetic appears to consist in whole or in part
    of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.

    Reason: FILTHY
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or in part
    of a filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or be otherwise
    unfit for food.

    Reason: FLAVR LBLG
    Section: 403(k), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to contain an artificial
    flavoring and it fails to bear labeling stating that fact.

    Reason: FLUOROCARB
    Section: 402(a)(2)(A), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain chloroflurocarbons in
    violation of 21 CFR 2.125.

    Reason: FLUOROCARB
    Section: 501(a)(5), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a new animal drug
    containing chloroflurocarbons in violation of 21 CFR 2.125.

    Reason: FLUOROCARB
    Section: 601(a), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain chloroflurocarbons in
    violation of 21 CFR Part 2.125.

    Reason: FORBIDDEN
    Section: 801(a)(2); FORBIDDEN OR RESTRICTED IN SALE
    Charge: The article appears to be forbidden or restricted in
    sale in the country in which it was produced or from which
    it was exported.

    Reason: FOREIGN OB
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or in part
    of a filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or is
    otherwise unfit for food in that it appears to contain
    foreign objects.

    Reason: FRNMFGREG
    Section: 502(o), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The foreign manufacturer has not registered as
    required by section 510(i)(1)

    Reason: GINSENG
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain “Ginseng”, a
    food additive which is unsafe within the meaning of Section
    409.

    Reason: HEALTH C
    Section: 801(a)(3); 403(r)(1)(A)/(B) misbranding
    Charge: The article appears to be misbranded in that the
    label or labeling bears an unauthorized nutrient
    content/health claim.

    Reason: HELD INSAN
    Section: 601(c), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The cosmetic appears to have been prepared, packed,
    or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have
    become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: HEPATITISA
    Section: Section 801(a)(3), 402(a)(1); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain Hepatitis A Virus, a
    poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: HISTAMINE
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain histamine, a
    poisonous and deleterious substance in such quantity as
    ordinarily renders it injurious to health.

    Reason: HOLES
    Section: 501(c); 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The quality of the article falls below that which it
    purports or is represented to possess, in that the devices
    contain defects/holes.

    Reason: IMBED OBJT
    Section: 402(d)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a confectionary that has
    partially or completely imbedded therein any nonnutritive
    object.

    Reason: IMITATION
    Section: 403(c), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be an imitation of another
    food, and the label does not bear in type of uniform size
    and prominence, the word “imitation” and immediately
    thereafter, the name of the food imitated.

    Reason: IMPTRHACCP
    Section: 801(a)(3) , 402(a)(4) Adulteration
    Charge: The food appears to have been prepared, packed or
    held under insanitary conditions, or may have become
    injurious to health, due to the failure of the importer to
    provide verification of compliance pursuant to 21 CFR

    Reason: INCONSPICU
    Section: 403(f), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: Information required by the Act to be on the label
    or labeling does not appear to be conspicuous enough as to
    render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary
    individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.

    Reason: INCONSPICU
    Section: 502(c), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: Information required by the Act to be on the label
    or labeling does not appear to be conspicuous enough as to
    render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary
    individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.

    Reason: INGRED FIL
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be an ingredient in a dietary
    supplement and may have been prepared packed or held under
    insanitary conditions whereby it may have become
    contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: INSAN BSE
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to have
    been prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions
    whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: INSANITARY
    Section: 501(a)(2)(A), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared, packed or
    held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been
    contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: INSANITARY
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared, packed,
    or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have
    become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: INSULIN
    Section: 502(k), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The drug appears to purport, or represented as,
    being composed wholly or partly of insulin and it does not
    appear to be from a batch with respect to which a
    certificate or release has been issued pursuant to section

    Reason: INVDEVICE
    Section: 501(i), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be a
    device for investigational use for which no exemption has
    been granted as prescribed by Section 520(g)

    Reason: JUICE %
    Section: 403(i)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears the food is a beverage containing
    vegetable or fruit juice and does not bear a statement on
    the label in appropriate prominence on the information panel
    of the total percentage of such fruit or vegetable juice

    Reason: LABELING
    Section: Section 4(a); 801(a)(3) Misbranding
    Charge: The article appears in violation of FPLA because of
    its placement, form and/or contents statement.

    Reason: LACK NOTIF
    Section: 301(s)
    Charge: Adulterated, 801(a)(3), lack of documentation
    establishing that the infant formula meets all notification
    conditions required by 412(c) or 412(d), Prohibited Act,
    Section 301(s).

    Reason: LACKS FIRM
    Section: 403(e)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The food is in package form and appears to not bear
    a label containing the name and place of business of the
    manufacturer, packer, or distributor.

    Reason: LACKS FIRM
    Section: 502(b)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article is in package form and appears to not
    bear a label containing the name and place of business of
    the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.

    Reason: LACKS N/C
    Section: 403(e)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The food is in package form and appears to not have
    a label containing an accurate statement of the quantity of
    the contents in terms of weight, measure or numerical count
    and no variations or exemptions have been prescribed by

    Reason: LACKS N/C
    Section: 502(b)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article is in package form and appears to not
    have a label containing an accurate statement of the
    quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure or
    numerical count and no variations or exemptions have been

    Reason: LBL STEEL
    Section: 502(a); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: The labeling for this article appears to be false or
    misleading: labeling suggests it is composed of stainless
    steel, but it doesn’t meet standard requirements for the
    appropriate type of stainless steel.

    Reason: LBLG ADVER
    Section: 502(a), 201(n) and 801(a)(3) Misbranding
    Charge: The art apprs misbranded because its lblg is misledg
    namely it fails to reveal facts (non-sterility) that are
    material w/respect to consequences frm the use of the art
    accordg to lblg or advertisg or undercondtns of customary or

    Reason: LEAK/SWELL
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be held in swollen containers
    or contains micro leaks.

    Reason: LENS CERT
    Section: 502(a), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The lenses are declared by accompanying certificate
    to meet the requirements for impact-resistant lenses in 21
    CFR 801.410 but does not appear to be impact-resistant.

    Reason: LIST INGRE
    Section: 403(i)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears the food is fabricated from two or more
    ingredients and the label does not list the common or usual
    name of each ingredient.

    Reason: LISTERIA
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain Listeria, a poisonous
    and deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    health.

    Reason: MFR INSAN
    Section: 801(a)(1); INSANITARY MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING OR PACKING
    Charge: The article appears to have been manufactured,
    processed, or packed under insanitary conditions.

    Reason: MFRHACCP
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3)
    Charge: The product appears to have been prepared, packed,
    or held under insanitary conditions, or it may be injurious
    to health, due to failure of the foreign processor to comply
    with 21 CFR 123.

    Reason: N-RX INACT
    Section: 502(e)(1); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: The article appears to be a nonprescription drug and
    fails to bear the established name of each inactive
    ingredient in alphabetical order on the outside container of
    the retail package.

    Reason: NEEDS ACID
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The food appears to have been prepared, packed, or
    held under insanitary conditions, or it may have been
    rendered injurious to health due to inadequate
    acidification.

    Reason: NEEDS FCE
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears the manufacturer is not registered as a
    low acid canned food or acidified food manufacturer pursuant
    to 21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) or 108.35(c)(1).

    Reason: NEW VET DR
    Section: 501(a)(5), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a new animal drug which is
    unsafe within the meaning of Section 512(a) in that there is
    not in effect an approval of an applications filed with
    respect to its intended use or uses.

    Reason: NITROFURAN
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission in
    that it appears to bear or contain a food additive, namely
    nitrofurans, that is unsafe.

    Reason: NO 510(K)
    Section: 801(a)(3); 502(o) Misbranding
    Charge: It appears that a notice or other information
    respecting the device was not provided to FDA, as required
    by Section 510(k) and the device was not found to be
    substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

    Reason: NO ENGLISH
    Section: 403(f), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: Required label or labeling appears to not be in
    English per 21 CFR 101.15(c).

    Reason: NO ENGLISH
    Section: 502(c); 801(a)(3);Misbranding
    Charge: Required label or labeling appears to not be in
    English in violation of 21 C.F.R. 801.15(c)(1)

    Reason: NO ENGLISH
    Section: 502(c); 801(a)(3) ;MISBRANDING
    Charge: Required label or labeling appears to not be in
    English in violation of 21 C.F.R. 201.15(c)(1).

    Reason: NO LICENSE
    Section: 502(f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING & PHS BIOL. ACT 351
    Charge: The article appears to be a biological product not
    manufactured at an establishment holding an unsuspended and
    unrevoked license issued under the Public Health Service
    Act, Biological Products section 351.

    Reason: NO PERMIT
    Section: 1, 2; PROHIBITION WITHOUT PERMIT
    Charge: The article of milk or cream is not accompanied by a
    valid import milk permit, as required by the Federal Import
    Milk Act (21 U.S.C. 141-149).

    Reason: NO PMA
    Section: 501(f)(1)(B), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a class III device without
    an approved application for premarket approval pursuant to
    section 515(a).

    Reason: NO PMA/PDP
    Section: 501(f)(1)(A); 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a class III dev.w/o an
    approved applic. for premarket approval, and/or a notice of
    completion of product development protocol filed per
    sect.515(b) or exempt per sect.520(g)(1). [Adulteration,

    Reason: NO PROCESS
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears that the manufacturer has not filed
    information on its scheduled process as required by 21 CFR
    108.25(c)(2) or 108.35(c)(2).

    Reason: NO REGISTR
    Section: 536(a); Failure to file initial report
    Charge: The article appears to be an electronic product that
    does not comply with an applicable standard as prescribed by
    Section 534 because no reporting has been provided as
    required by Section 537(b).

    Reason: NO TAG
    Section: 536(a),(b); NOT CERTIFIED
    Charge: It appears that the article does not have affixed to
    it a certification in the form of a label or tag in
    conformity with section 534(h).

    Reason: NOCONTCODE
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The low acid or acidified food appears to have been
    prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions, or it
    may be injurious to health, due to failure to mark with a
    permanent container code pursuant to 21 CFR 113.60(c) or

    Reason: NON STD
    Section: 536(a),(b); NON STANDARD
    Charge: It appears that the article fails to comply with
    applicable standards prescribed under section 534.

    Reason: NONNUT SUB
    Section: 402(d)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be confectionery and it bears
    or contains a nonnutritive substance.

    Reason: NONRSP-PRC
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared or packed
    under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health due to inadequate processing in
    that the scheduled process filed by the manufacturer

    Reason: NONRSP-VER
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared or packed
    under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health due to inadequate processing in
    that the scheduled process filed by the manufacturer

    Reason: NONSTEEL
    Section: 502(a) and/or 502(f)(1); Misbranding
    Charge: Labeling appears false or misleading or fails to
    bear adequate directions for use,because the article appears
    to be misrepresented as a disposable single use instrument
    when it is intended for use as a stainless steel multi-use

    Reason: NOT IMPACT
    Section: 501(c), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to not have impact-resistant
    lenses in accordance with 21 CFR 801.410.

    Reason: NOT LISTED
    Section: 502(o), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears the drug or device is not included in a
    list required by Section 510(j), or a notice or other
    information respecting it was not provided as required by
    section 510(j) or 510(k).

    Reason: NUTR DEF
    Section: 412(a)(1), 801(a)(3); Adulterated
    Charge: the infant formula appears to adulterated in that it
    does not provide the nutrients required by 21 CFR 107.100

    Reason: NUTR UNIT
    Section: 403(f), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDED
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that the infant formula
    appears to be misbranded within the meaning of Section 403
    in that the labeling fails to use the proper units to

    Reason: NUTRIT LBL
    Section: 403(q); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
    Charge: The article appears to be misbranded in that the
    label or labeling fails to bear the required nutrition
    information.

    Reason: OFF ODOR
    Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or in part
    of a filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or be otherwise
    unfit for food. Contains an off odor.

    Reason: OMITTED
    Section: 402(b)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears that a valuable constituent of the
    article has been in whole or in part omitted or abstraced
    from the article.

    Reason: OPTION ING
    Section: 403(g)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears to be a food for which a definition and
    standard of identity have been prescribed by regulations
    under section 401 and appears to not be labelled with the
    common names of the optional ingredients specified therein.

    Reason: PATULIN
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain patulin, a poisonous
    and deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    health.

    Reason: PERSONALRX
    Section: 502(a) & (f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a drug which requires a
    prescription from your doctor.

    Reason: PESTICIDE
    Section: 402(a)(2)(B), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a raw agricultural
    commodity that bears or contains a pesticide chemical which
    is unsafe within the meaning of Section 408(a).

    Reason: PESTICIDES
    Section: 402(a)(2)(B), 802(a)(B); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be
    adulterated because it contains a pesticide chemical, which
    is in violation of section 402(a)(2)(B). Contains:

    Reason: POIS CHLOR
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a poisonous or
    deleterious substance, namely chloramphenicol, which may
    render it injurious to health.

    Reason: POISON PKG
    Section: 502(p), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a drug and its packaging
    and labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation
    issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention
    Packaging Act of 1970.

    Reason: POISONOUS
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a poisonous or
    deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    health.

    Reason: POISONOUS
    Section: 601(a), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The cosmetic appears to bear or contain a poisonous
    or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    users under the conditions prescribed in the labeling
    thereof, or, under such conditions of use as are customary

    Reason: POSS N/STR
    Section: 501(a)(1); 801(a)(3) ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or in part
    of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, namely,
    potentially infectious organisms

    Reason: PRESRV LBL
    Section: 403(k), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to contain a chemical
    preservative and it fails to bear labeling stating that fact
    including its function.

    Reason: RADIONUC
    Section: 402(a)(1); 801(a)(3); Adulteration
    Charge: Article appears to contain the radionuclide,
    Cesium-137, a poisonous and deleterious substance which may
    render it injurious to health.

    Reason: RECORDS
    Section: 502(t), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a device and the
    requirements under 518 or to furnish any material or
    information required by or under section 519 respecting a
    device were not met.

    Reason: REDUCED
    Section: 501(d)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears to be a drug that a substance has been
    mixed or packed with so as to reduce its strength.

    Reason: REGISTERED
    Section: 502(o), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears the device is subject to listing under
    510(j) and the initial distributor has not registered as
    required by 21 CFR 807.20 (a)(4).

    Reason: REJECT TEA
    Section: 1 (21USC41); PROHIBITED TEA
    Charge: The article is inferior in purity, quality, and
    fitness for consumption to the standards provided in section
    43.

    TEA ACT REPEALED!

    Reason: RX DEVICE
    Section: 502(a),(f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a prescription device
    without a prescription device legend as required by 21 CFR
    801.109.

    Reason: RX LEGEND
    Section: 502(a) & (f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a prescription drug
    without a prescription drug legend as required by Section
    503(b)(4).

    Reason: RXCOMPOUND
    Section: 503(b)(4)(A) & 502(c), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: the labeling fails to bear, at a minimum, the symbol
    “Rx only.”

    Reason: RXPERSONAL
    Section: 502(a), 502(f)(1), 801(a)(3), MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a device which requires a
    prescription from your doctor.

    Reason: SACCHARIN
    Section: 403(o); 801(a)(3) Misbranded
    Charge: The article contains Saccharin, a non-nutritive
    sweetner, and its label or labeling fails to bear the
    required warning statement.

    Reason: SACCHARLBL
    Section: 403(i); 803(a)(3) Misbranding
    Charge: The article contains Saccharin, a non-nutritive
    sweetener, and its label or labeling fails to list it as an
    added ingredient

    Reason: SALMONELLA
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain Salmonella, a
    poisonous and deleterious substance which may render it
    injurious to health.

    Reason: SBGINSENG
    Section: 801(a)(3); 403(u) Misbranding
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission in
    that it appears to be Misbranded because it or its
    ingredients purport to be or are represented as Ginseng, but
    are not an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant

    Reason: SHIGELLA
    Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain Shigella, a poisonous
    and deleterious substance which may render it injurious to
    health.

    Reason: SOAKED/WET
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared, packed,
    or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have
    become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health in that it appears to been held

    Reason: STAINSTEEL
    Section: 501(c); 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be a device whose quality
    falls below that which it purports or is represented to
    possess, in that instrument is represented as stainless
    steel but does not meet requirements for such steel for

    Reason: STARANISE
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 801(a)(3), Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain a food
    additive, Japanese star anise, that is unsafe within the
    meaning of section 409.

    Reason: STD FILL
    Section: 403(h)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be represented as a food for
    which a standard of fill of container has been prescribed by
    regulations as provided by section 401 and it appears it
    falls below the standard of fill and its label does not so

    Reason: STD IDENT
    Section: 403(g)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The food appears to be represented as a food for
    which a definition and standard of identity have been
    prescribed by regulations as provided by section 401 and the
    food does not appear to conform to such definition and

    Reason: STD LABEL
    Section: 502(s), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to not bear labeling prescribed
    by the performance standard established under section 514.

    Reason: STD NAME
    Section: 403(g)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears to be a food for which a definition and
    standard of identity have been prescribed by regulations
    under section 401 and appears to not be labelled with the
    name specified in the definition and standard.

    Reason: STD QUALIT
    Section: 403(h)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be represented as a food for
    which a standard of quality has been prescribed by
    regulation as provided by Sec. 401 and it appears its
    quality falls below such standard and its label does not so

    Reason: STERILITY
    Section: 501(a)(2)(A), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have been prepared, packed or
    held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been
    contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been
    rendered injurious to health.

    Reason: STERILITY
    Section: 501(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or in part
    of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.

    Reason: SUBSTITUTE
    Section: 402(b)(2), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears that a substance has been substituted
    wholly or in part for one or more of the article’s
    ingredients.

    Reason: SUBSTITUTE
    Section: 501(d)(2), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears to be a drug that a substance has been
    substituted wholly or in part.

    Reason: SULFITELBL
    Section: 403(a)(1), 801(a)(3) ;MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article is subject to refusal of admission
    pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be
    misbranded because 1) it appears to contain sulfites but the
    label fails to declare the presence of sulfites, a fact

    Reason: TAMPERING
    Section: 501(a)(2)(B), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: It appears that the packing does not conform with
    current good manufacturing practices under 21 CFR 211.132
    for tamper-resistant packaging.

    Reason: TISSUE
    Section: 361
    Charge: This human cell, tissue, and cellular and
    tissue-based product is in violation of Section 361 of the
    Public Health Service Act.

    Reason: TRANSFAT
    Section: 403(q), 801(a)(3) ;MISBRANDING
    Charge: The product is misbranded under Section 403(q)
    because the nutrition label does not provide all of the
    information required by 21 CFR 101.9(c); specifically, the
    label does not bear the amount of trans fat [21 CFR

    Reason: UNAPPROVED
    Section: 505(a), 801(a)(3); UNAPPROVED NEW DRUG
    Charge: The article appears to be a new drug without an
    approved new drug application.

    Reason: UNDER PRC
    Section: 402(a)(4), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to have inadequate processing in
    having been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary
    conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to
    health.

    Reason: UNSAFE ADD
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(i), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain a food
    additive which is unsafe within the meaning of Section 409.
    Contains

    Reason: UNSAFE COL
    Section: 402(c), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be, or to bear or contain a
    color additive which is unsafe within the meaning of Section
    721(a).

    Reason: UNSAFE COL
    Section: 501(a)(4)(B), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to be a color additive for the
    purposes of coloring only in or on drugs or devices, and is
    unsafe within the meaning of Section 721(a).

    Reason: UNSAFE SUB
    Section: 402(a)(2)(A), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to bear or contain a substance
    which is unsafe within the meaning of Section 406.

    Reason: UNSFDIETLB
    Section: 402(f)(1)(A), 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be a dietary supplement or
    contain a dietary ingredient that presents a significant or
    unreasonable risk of illness or injury under the conditions
    of use set out in the labeling or, if none are set out in

    Reason: UNSFDIETSP
    Section: 402(f)(1)(B), 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The article appears to be a dietary supplement or
    ingredient for which there is inadequate information to
    provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not
    present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or

    Reason: UNSFDIETUS
    Section: 402(f)(1)(D), 801(a)(3) Adulteration
    Charge: The article is or contains a dietary supplement that
    renders it adulterated under paragraph (a)(1) under
    conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling
    of such dietary supplement.

    Reason: USUAL NAME
    Section: 403(i)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears that the label does not bear the common
    or usual name of the food.

    Reason: VET LEGEND
    Section: 502(a) & (f)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be a veterinary drug without
    the “Caution” statement as required by Section 503(f)(4).

    Reason: VETDRUGRES
    Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(ii); 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
    Charge: The article appears to contain a new animal drug (or
    conversion product thereof) that is unsafe within the
    meaning of section 512. Product contains

    Reason: VITAMN LBL
    Section: 403(a)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The food appears to be subject to section 411 and
    its advertising is false or misleading in a material respect
    or its labeling is in violation of section 411(b)(2).

    Reason: WARNINGS
    Section: 502(f)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: It appears to lack adequate warning against use in a
    pathological condition or by children where it may be
    dangerous to health or against an unsafe dose, method,
    administering duration, application, in manner/form, to

    Reason: WRONG IDEN
    Section: 403(b), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
    Charge: The article appears to be offered for sale under the
    name of another food.

    Reason: YELLOW #5
    Section: 402(c), 403(m), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION, MISBRANDING
    Charge: The food appears to bear or contain the color
    additive FD & C Yellow No. 5, which is not declared on the
    label per 21 CFR 74.705 under section 721.

  10. My dog was eating these treats! I had run out of them and went back to Wal-Mart to get more. Upon checking out, I was told that I couldn’t purchase them and that they were recalled. At this point my dog wasn’t showing serious signs, but she was drinking more and urinating a LOT more (even in the house which is something she doesn’t normally do). She’s an older dog that doesn’t like extreme heat and I thought she was just drinking more because it had been extremely hot for a few weeks. The day after I returned home from Wal-Mart WITHOUT the chicken strips, she started to vomit and her appetite decreased rapidly. She had already consumed a bag of these chicken strips over the last few weeks and if my gut is correct…. this is when the toxins really took a toll.

    Over the next week, she was back and forth to the vet. Occasionally, I would get her to eat some chicken and rice and sometimes she would keep it down through the night. The next morning though, she was throwing up bile. The vet said that it wasn’t digesting. It was just breaking down in her stomach overnight and not passing through. She gave us some medication that was supposed to help “open her up” and let it pass through. The dog did not want to take this medication. She wouldn’t eat anything.. so I couldn’t hide it. I couldn’t pill her either. She was getting worse and worse. We took her back to the vet to re-hydrate and monitor her overnight. The vet actually sent us home though with a new idea to get the pills down (grind the pills in baby food and put in her mouth with a plastic syringe). THIS finally worked! I was getting the pills down her.

    In the midst of all this, I called Wal-Mart in a panic. I got a very rude woman who was not empathetic at all and told me I had to call corporate. At that point, all I was asking for was the manufacture of the strips or a reason why they were recalled. I had disposed of the empty bag and really didn’t remember who produced the treats. I didn’t give up with this woman though and she eventually put me on hold (well.. not really on hold because I could hear her complaining about me to another person) to talk to someone else. She came back with the manufacturer and a website I could go to.

    I went to the website and these were not the same treats I was feeding my dog. These were not the treats that I was told I could not purchase because they were recalled. None of the information she gave me was helpful or correct.

    This morning, my girlfriend sent me this article. Low and behold THESE are the treats I was feeding my dog! And clearly there IS A PROBLEM! My dog could have died (and possibly still could). She’s doing SO much better right now though. For the last 2 days, she has been eating and drinking as she normally would. She finished her dose of the pills and the next step is to get her into the vet for more blood work. Her liver & kidney enzymes were high when we first took her (which I now know are symptoms of this type of poisoning).

    I have already left a message for the vet, letting her know about this recall and I’m faxing over the article. I mentioned something when we took her in, but there wasn’t much to go on… only that they wouldn’t let me buy more of her treats. Now I have some more information and maybe we can run some specific tests. I don’t know if there is long term damage from something like this or if I can expect a full recovery.

    THANKS TO WHOEVER POSTED THIS! Maybe I can get some real answers about my dog and keep her alive and healthy!

  11. Here we go again! I cannot thank itchmo enough for their dedication and care in keeping up with all of this and keeping us all so well informed!

    I recieved the email alert on the 17th about Bestros jerky strips from itchmo and it sent up the red flags for me. I have been feeding my one yr old Saint Bernard the jerky strips for awhile now. I was mainly feeding the Waggin Train brand from Walmart but did occasionally buy the Bestro brand when Waggin Train was out of stock. The pkg says all natural chicken w/seasonings. OK. and HE LOVES THESE TREATS. They are the only treats he will eat. The problem is..he was loosing a few lbs, not nearly as playful as he was and every few days his stool was more like a puddle of mucus than what it should be. At those times he would not eat anything therefore losing weight.I have tried so hard to watch what he ate and still got caught with something not good for him. Well after that email we went right to the vet and had all the samples and bloodwork done.I guess I am a little paranoid after all this nonsence about pet food that should not be happening. They are putting pet food out there that we as humans need a hazemat certif to handle so we do not get sick from it! I took all the pkgs of anything he eats with me. Thankfully all the bloodwork was ok. Kidneys and liver are ok, but I told the vet about the email alert I recieved on the Bestro Brand and she advised me to stop the Waggin Train brand too, which I had already done a week prior. She said what are the seasonings? They may very well be very irritating to the stomach and intestines. It will be a week Thursday that he still takes me to where we kept the treats because he wants some, but has had none, his stomach has settled and every time he goes outside to take care of business I can see the diff. He is eating all his food better and his stomach is filled out better. He is getting back to bringing his toys to us asking to play.

    Like I said in the beginning, I cannot thank itchmo enough for all your hard work and the alerts. We have been very lucky that this turns out to be irritation and not something worse. And maybe his size and weight has had something to do with how he handled this. A smaller pet might not be so lucky! At a yr old he is 32 inches to his back and 120 lbs. He is too thin in my opinion, but we are working on that. As a Saint he will continue to fill out for awhile yet.

    So..thank you again…and if our experience with chicken jerky strips helps just one pet from a simple thing like irritation than it sure is worth taking the time to send this post.

    Sorry to ramble, but we are so happy that our solution turned out to be simple. The previous post by Nora, by the way, is right on target. WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE AND AWARE BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE OUT THERE CARES!!!!!

  12. I heard today, that a plant in China was shut down for selling used, uncleaned chop-sticks in their country. The list of rejects that they export is mind boggeling. And most of what’s not rejected, is later found to be dangerous. WHO IS AT THE WHEEL HERE ?????

  13. Why does this not surprise us? When I heard a chinese spokesman say,”We want to become the food basket to the world”, it looks to me like the dream is becoming a reality.

  14. Want to fix this problem? The solution is simple:

    DON’T BUY TREATS AND COMMERCIAL PET FOOD

  15. …Like a small amount of melamine is just fine for pets and humans and a trace amount of lead is perfectly ok.

    When is everyone going to realize that SHI* made in China or any third world country is contaminated. I don’t care what the FDA, the manufacturers or the Chinese say. There aren’t enough regulations, laws, penalties, and testing in place to assure any level of qaulity.

    Quit buying pet food/pet treats from those huge multinationals – if you need to find an aternative, then just find one. BE DONE WITH THEM!!! That way, when another recall, and another recall, and another happens, you’ll have a little more peace of mind. Nothing is guaranteed in life, but you can reduce the probability/risk of injury or death to your pets.

    All these mother******* are liars, thiefs, and animal haters – just exploiting the **** out of our pets in the name of profit. If Mars, Iams, Pukanuba, etc….gave a ****, they would have pulled out of China, and dumped a ton of money into developing top quality manufacturing facilities here in the USA using top quality raw materials and putting together a state-of-the-art quality assurance program. They have done no such thing. They just wanted all this to go away and have business as usual and hope/pray that the on-going contamination of pet food is below the detection threshhold.

  16. Ithappened2me, I am sooo sorry. Nancie, I am sooo sorry. But Louie says it all above. Stop feeding the commercial food and treats. This is a REAL message to everyone out there. How many times must it be repeated?

  17. …no one is at the helm, and everyone is assuming there is someone else responsible there… This transcends all politics and should unify us.

    And has anyone thought to mention to the vet and ASK if their sick dog MIGHT have been exposed and contracted asian bird flu given the chicken strips came from a country known to have recent outbreaks?
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-03/29/content_839764.htm

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/birdflu-china-070110.html

    http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24995

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/07/content_845532.htm

    http://www.birdflumonitor.com/

    http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/info/Teenager_dies_of_bird_flu.html

    http://avianflu.futurehs.com/?cat=7
    June 2007

    http://tinyurl.com/yrlfly

    Some might think, hey that bird flu doesn’t cross species barriers. Well, yes, depending on which one, and under what circumstances, it is known to cross those barriers. In China, recall we’ve read that they are known to raise and store their animals stacked in cages and there is cross-contamination of food and feces and urine between breeds to those stacked underneath. This feces to food repeated exposure made it possible for some viruses to cross over, like the H5N1 variant that they get really worried about, because it can infect humans. I believe in the H5N1 case, the virus had to jump from birds to another animal to hogs and then to humans to be capable of infecting us. And once there, then they worried about whether the mutation was capable of being carried airborne or just via other means. I’m no expert in this but it is food for thought. One dog that reportedly died had a toxic bacterial infection in one news article. Well, it isn’t unheard of for an animal or us to contract a secondary bacterial infection after being weakened by a severe viral infection. I’d be in a hurry to ask my vet if I had a sick dog.

    Vets are human too. When a food recall like the two foods posted today occurs, we should not assume the vet saw those. Print them and take them to them. It might be once a week when they find time to catch up on their reading of such news otherwise. And it wouldn’t hurt to print the vet any anecdotal not-yet-a-recall but reports-are-not-good stories about any food or treat that might affect your sick dog. If it were me, I’d not be feeding chicken, duck, poultry, or pork from China to my pets in any form right now.

    The hogs there are reported to be having a blue-ear hog viral severe outbreak in 25 out of 33 provinces per the IHT story. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/16/business/16pigs.php

  18. Stop buying food/treats (for family and pets) from China or any other country for that matter. There are some pretty good small organic US family farms that use sustainable, healthy, wholesome farming practices (land, air, waters, animal welfare) that could use our dollars – please investigate – look for grass fed beef, organic farms with pasture raised pork and poultry in your state or nearby states, etc…: Here’s two that I use and I am very comfortable with both:

    americangrassfedbeef
    goodearth farms

    Look for small organic farms on the Internet and then call – don’t shop based strictly on price – call these farmers and listen to what they say.

    Take control of your family and pets diets once and for all and quit relying on others to provide nutritious, safe food in a can, carton, bag, or box – it ain’t gonna happen.

  19. Hopefully the vet you know and who treats your pet is a good one, because many vets are in denial also and they are misinformed by the Pet Food Companies whose pet foods they sell out of their Veterinarian Offices. I have changed vets 2 times in the last 6 months because of the recall chaos. I have finally found one who will listen to me and seems to care about my dogs…….BUT, I still see a room full of Science Diet that the office sells, of which I will NEVER purchase. Good Luck everyone. Sometimes I feel that some of the good vets have become victims too.

  20. GOOD GRIEF!! Just when you think things MIGHT have gotten a bit under control, it seems to have started again. This is all total BS. The chinese know what the hell is going on but quite simply put, they DO NOT GIVE A DAMN. It seems the only thing they are concerned with is the $$$$ generated from sales of any crap they can shove down our throat. And crap is what they’re best at doing and selling.
    Seafood…..crap
    Dogfood….crap
    Clothes….crap
    Tools…..crap
    Toys….crap
    Jewelry….crap, crap, crap, CRAP——–(I’m a jeweler by trade.)
    It seems anything chinese……crap

    Kiki. I disagree with one thing you’ve said. these companie$ are not animal hater$. they love animal$ e$pecially when it come$ to their corporate bottom line$

    These companies are not going to pull out of china UNTIL a very effective BOYCOTT of them and ANYTHING chinese is in place.

    This business of buying and selling chinese is nothing more than for the $$$$. Large corps buy for pennies on the dollar and sell at what the traffic will bear. (did anyone seriously think cause they’re buying for so much more less that the savings would be passed on to you Mr and Mrs consumer!?? ) It has HUGE impacts on their money sucking bottom lines and makes the bonus grubbing exec’s tons of $$$$ in bonus’s.

    The chinese government is a totalitarian dictatorship and a money hungry one at that. They will execute their own people like that plant manager a while back. I DO NOT believe for a second it was because of tainted product from lack of quality control. they were sending out a message—–DO NOT BE DISCOVERED or you will pay. You are causing the government to lose face and (guess what) $$$$$$$$$

    Why is our government still permitting this to go on pretty much unchecked? Large corp$. Bottom line$. Period.
    We started getting inferior product shoved down out throats about 15 years ago and it’s not going to stop anytime soon.

    It is UP TO US to force corp$ to change their ways. They will not do it on their own.

    As a jeweler I could make a killing by buying chinese copycat JUNK jewelry at pennies compared to $$ and reselling. I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to lower myself to that level and my customers know that and appreciate it.
    I was at a craft fair this past Sunday and was appaled by the amount of chinese copycat g-a-r-b-a-g-e that was up for sale. It was truly disappointing that people in a type of trust position would be selling this junk and passing it off as the real McCoy. Nuff said. I rant and rave—but all this is a real sore spot with me.

    BOYCOTT CHINESE
    BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT SELL CHINESE—–unfortunately it’s almost all of them by the way.

    With that said. I gotta get off my soapbox and go mow the lawn.

  21. I don’t believe all this melamine crap. When you research poisons and renal failure articles before March, nothing comes up about melamine. You get various medications, lilies, grapes, antifreeze, viper venom, hair dye ingredients, oil of wormwood (absinthe), castor beans, etc. Now a trace of melamine caused the toxic bowel that poor dog died of? There’s a hell of a lot we aren’t being told. And I still wonder what the *redacted* ingredient was.

  22. Go Bob Go – Everything you’ve said is TRUE – but one thing.

    Exploiting a situation (eg. pets with contaminated, low quality pet food, using animals for profit-making that harms the animal) IS NOT LOVING ANIMALS OR PETS – it’s not giving a $hit about animals – it’s VICK$ONIAN and rises to the level of criminality and inhumanity.

  23. From the FDA’s Enforcement Report August 15, 2007:

    “Bioplex Copper 10%, a feed premix, and premixes containing Bioplex Copper, were made using copper sulfate pentahydrate that was contaminated with dioxin like PCBs”

    http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF01017.html

    Go to the end of the report. I don’t know where the premix is used, but Purina’s name is mentioned.

    Sorry if this is off topic, but I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere.

  24. Roberto P. says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
    I don’t believe all this melamine crap. …

    Roberto, I looked up a couple references. I too do not think melamine is THE culprit, although I believe it is part of MANY culprits in this mess that develops over time. Many of us think there are multiple toxins at play, and some in conjunction with others. One group thinks cyanuric acid in conjunction with melamine makes much larger kidney blocking crystals to form, and a Canadian lab backed up that possibility. And some early thought rat poison, and then later some thought acetaminophen. Maybe others.

    All the best.

    Center for Disease Control – CDC (Government)
    Melamine search on site
    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1154.html
    Quote: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
    When ingested in large amounts the substance may have effects on the kidneys and bladder, resulting in stone formation

    Cyanuric Acid (a derivative):
    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1313.html
    Quote: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
    When ingested in large amounts the substance may have effects on the kidneys , resulting in tissue lesions.

    True, those are effects on humans. We can’t as easily look up the same for pets because our government hasn’t funded or created a animal/pet based CDC.

    And Go Bob Go… The culprits in this exist in both countries and many corporations. And I don’t mean the taints.

  25. Kiki
    Please re-read my earlier post and take note of the $ in the comment about corporations and their “love” of animals.
    Criminal…certainly
    Will be prosecuted$$ Yeah, you betcha. I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale too.
    I feel blessed that none of my critters have been adversly affected. I caught the posts re the poison early in the program.
    This does not keep me from becoming absolutely furious over it all however. Affected or not. NONE of these slimy bastards EVER want me to get my hands on em.

    Been doin some thinkin since my last post.
    Christmas is fast approaching. It is by far the largest selling season of a year.
    Start yer shopping early. Shop US made and boycott wally world.
    Why wally world? It’s the largest retailer in the world. Put as big a dent in their back pockets as possible. SEND A MESSAGE.
    Trying to boycott all stores involved is impossible but putting the focus on one chain IS POSSIBLE. Spread the word. Tell EVERYONE.
    I especially like the idea of wally world because their claim to fames used to be “We buy American, so you can too.” Hypocrites.
    I especially like the idea of wally world because I too have been the target of their rudness over the phone. Their evasive answers and their answering a question —-without—answering it.

    Find manufacturers in the US and stores that sell primarly US product. Put the word out about these fine companies and encourage all your friends to shop these.

    Tell everyone on this list about em too.

    Become a label reader.
    Watch the products that say “marketed by” such and such. It’s a way they get around telling you where it was made and the where, is probably china.

  26. Completely eliminate the middle-man (eg. stores like Wally World, Walmart, etc) and buy direct and fresh from small US farmers. The corporate bastards need to lose market share and fast!!! Let them move their stores to China if they like. We need to take care of our own – give your dollars to the real farmers in America – not the inhumane CAFOS.

  27. Kiki has a valid point. We started buying from local farms and co-ops this past spring and the difference in things like veggies is astounding.
    A tomato actually tastes like a tomato, not wet cardboard and the list goes on.
    Exepct a few blems on some of the produce but what you get in return is quality chemical free produce versus chemicals pretending to be produce.

    I ran on to an apple tree a while back that’s on the border of one of the local parks where I run my muttzoids. It’s in the sticks a bit, so not many people actually set foot in the tall grass and weeds that surround it. One of my dogs got to chasing a rabbit and he kinda sorta led me to it. The apples are FANTASTIC. NO chemicals at all. Ya gotta eat around a few worm holes and such and they’re a tad on the small side but DANG they taste good.
    I gotta git.

  28. “Watch the products that say “marketed by” such and such. It’s a way they get around telling you where it was made and the where, is probably china.”

    i fired all the major brands from my home. decided it was MUCH easier than reading labels and wondering if the ingredients had changed since the last time i shopped. been doing just fine for about 5 months without them! it’s much easier than you think. you can make your own safe non-toxic cleaners, get personal products from small natural companies, but check to make sure a biggie hasn’t bought them out as they are trying to muscle in on the natural market. food from local farms and ranches etc. use more whole foods over processed, which i was doing anyway, and enjoy much nicer meals :)

    i’ll still fight these *******, but i won’t let them kill me or my pets in the process.

  29. Look at the company name, Import-Pingyang Pet Product Co. you get what you pay for. The name says it all.

    As for organic, organic does not mean it is better for you or your pet. Living in a farming community, most farmers do not eat organic.

  30. Just an FYI to those of you who haven’t seen my other posts. Wallys did say that there were two brands but they never did specify the second one. I’m pretty sure it’s Waggin Train. I was there yesterday & went down that aisle to check it out: all the display boxes for Waggin Train chicken jerky were there but the bags were gone. I’ve never seen Bestro around here but I see Waggin Train everywhere.

    I agree with all of you: it’s not melamine. This is just the cover they are hiding behind so they don’t have to divulge what really is sickening & killing our animals. It’s some kind of nasty toxin, that’s for sure.

    I have looked in every store in the last month or so & I cannot find a dog treat that is not made in China. Anything that says “distributed by” or something similar without saying where it is made is probably just a cover for “made in China” (I don’t know that for sure but it doesn’t matter, I won’t buy it). The thing that’s scary is that when they see that disclosure is causing their product not to sell, they will no longer tell where anything is made. It will still be made in China but the only thing they’ll disclose is who distributes it. That’s even worse.

  31. Happened to me read the Walmart story . Wal mart claim to be working with the FDA. The FDA is clearly again doing nothing or protecting trade with China . Protecting american businesses that have moved to China. No more products made in China for me and my pets and no more products from american companies with factories in China . No more buying from american pet food companies that have been involved in any recalls . I will continue to do everything I can to find out why my pets were ill from a food made in the USA buy a company that has different answers for different people whom ask the same question of them.

  32. Actually Donna, Many small US farmers who practice sustainable ag, do in fact grow organic (as strictly defined by USDA). They just don’t always PAY to have the USDA organic label.

    Please go to the eatwild website (the link is in a previous post I sent) to get a list of small US farmers who raise, and sell grass-fed products – most of which is in fact organic. Many of them will state if they have the organic label or not. The very best thing you can do is call the farmers and speak with them. They will explain in detail their farming methods and how they grow and raise the food they sell. Choose what is best for you and your family and pets…

  33. Actually Donna, Most small US farmers who practice sustainable ag, do in fact grow organic (as strictly defined by USDA). They just don’t always PAY to have the USDA organic label.

    Please go to the eatwild website (the link is in a previous post I sent) to get a list of small US farmers who raise, and sell grass-fed products – most of which is in fact organic. Many of them will state if they have the organic label or not. The very best thing you can do is call the farmers and speak with them. They will explain in detail their farming methods and how they grow and raise the food they sell. Choose what is best for you and your family and pets…

  34. WELL SAID BOB: These companies are not going to pull out of china UNTIL a very effective BOYCOTT of them and ANYTHING chinese is in place.

    Shop US made and boycott wally world.
    Why wally world? It’s the largest retailer in the world. Put as big a dent in their back pockets as possible. SEND A MESSAGE.
    Trying to boycott all stores involved is impossible but putting the focus on one chain IS POSSIBLE. Spread the word. Tell EVERYONE.

    Find manufacturers in the US and stores that sell primarly US product. Put the word out about these fine companies and encourage all your friends to shop these.

    Tell everyone on this list about em too.

    Become a label reader.

    WELL SAID ROBERTO P: Now a trace of melamine caused the toxic bowel that poor dog died of? There’s a hell of a lot we aren’t being told. And I still wonder what the *redacted* ingredient was.

    BOYCOTT. BOSTON TEA PARTY TIME. WHAT IS THE REDACTED POISON? WHO IS THE FDA IS PROTECTING?

  35. WELL SAID THOMAS:
    NO MORE
    Protecting american businesses that have moved to China.
    No more products made in China for me and my pets and no more products from american companies with factories in China.
    No more buying from american pet food companies that have been involved in any recalls .

    NO MORE
    NO MORE
    NO MORE

  36. Just when you think you’ve heard it all:

    http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070822&cat=business&st=businessd8r65ck81&src=ap

    China Finds Problems With U.S. Soybeans AP August 22, 2007

    “China said Wednesday it had found pesticides, poisonous weeds, and dirt in shipments of imported U.S. soybeans, and a toy industry representative said U.S. manufacturer Mattel Inc. was partly to blame for lead tainting that caused massive toy recalls.

    “China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said it has found “numerous quality problems” with soybeans imported from the United States. The quality watchdog said it had found pesticides, poisonous weeds, and dirt in the U.S. exports.”

    And:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/22/asia/AS-GEN-SKorea-China-Sandwich-Death.php

    IHT August 22, 2007

    “A top South Korean diplomat in Beijing who felt ill after eating a tuna sandwich sought treatment at a prominent clinic in the city. He died that same day.

    “More than three weeks later, Whang Joung-il’s family is still seeking answers and his untimely death has raised concerns of a government cover-up as Beijing struggles to allay global worries about the safety of Chinese products.”

    http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708220026.html

    Chosun (South Korea) .com

    “The Korean Embassy in China believes Whang’s death was due to a grave medical error by a physician at the hospital, who administered the wrong antibiotic after injecting him with Ringer’s solution containing calcium. ”

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/08/116_8736.html

    But honestly, does anyone know whether it was the sandwich or the medical treatment which killed him?

    China has pulled the plug on the Pingyang Pet Products/Bestros website:

    http://www.dogchews.com/

    And if you don’t believe the Chinese government is keeping score, have a look at the URL below. It turned up while I was working on the PPP/Bestros information. While our own FDA OASIS refusals are online date back only a year, this is a Chinese copy from 2002:

    http://www2.ziq.gov.cn/departs/kjc/foriegn/refusal/may.htm

    Pingyang Pet Products/Bestros is listed on the page for salmonella violations, along with Pingyang Pet Leather Manufacture Factory, who makes Dingo products. They were held for salmonella concern as well.

    Harry Truman was famous for saying “The buck stops here.” We all need to keep on telling everyone where our “bucks” stop and why they stop there!

  37. I would gladly buy just US made products if I could find any!!!!!!!!!!! Every where I go anymore says made in China. Clothes, toys and just about everything is made in China. And if it does not say made in China then the company only says distributed by and that probably means made in China too. I see hardly anything any more saying made in the USA. Sorry to say. It is a wonder that we have any jobs left with all the manufacturers closing up because we all bought low cost products made in China and never even looked to see who made them.
    I am sorry about that USA. If I had only known before I would have stuck to only USA products. Too late now. We are all stuck having to buy certain things made from China because no one else is making them or they are selling them to foreign buyers instead of US buyers.
    As far as the pet food goes. Well I personally feel it is a losing battle. No matter what we do our pets are going to get something that is bad for them. Vitamins we use are made in China. Sure we can call a company and ask them where they get their vitamins and how do we know they are telling us the truth? How do we know that all of their shipments are US made? There is no way to tell.
    I have one cat left after all of this toxic pet food recall. I lost my dog and my other cat. I love animals so very much but I am scared to get another pet. I do not want the heartaache and pain of seeing another one suffer and there is just no way of telling any more if any product is safe, including our own products.
    the bills and the suffering from a pet is just too much for me to handle any more.
    Yes I could go out and buy cattle, pigs and chickens from only gracing farms. But that would not help when it comes to giving my cat a hair ball remedy or a vitamin.
    We have lived this way relying on the industry too long and now it is distroying us and our pets. There is always going to be recalls on our food and our pet food. There is no way to stop it any more. Too many mouths to feed and too many other countries supplying our products. I feel like we are doomed!
    I do not know any more if our government even knows what to do about all of this and I wonder if they even care! Probably not.. And then I wonder if they will care if our children start dieing. It is not just our pets any more, it is our lifes and our children lifes at stake any more.
    I thank Itchmo for all their great reporting of bad products but it breaks my heart to see this country become what it has. Corrupt!

  38. It seems to me that companies continue to import Chinese garbage because they have very little liability if something goes wrong. They’ll just get their insurance company to hassle anyone who files a claim. According to the law pets are not worth a whole lot monetarily so I bet it’s cheaper to keep buying Chinese junk and pay off any potential claims.

    I thought WalMart had their purchasing office in China. Why don’t these large companies bear any responsibility for insuring the quality of their products?

    I know I am trying to avoid anything made in China. Always detested Wal Mart because of the way they treat their employees. They are truly the poster child for Chinese imports. However, there are many companies who are just as bad. Let their goods sit on their shelves.

  39. If you have the time go to the FDA website and read through the list of recalls for the last 5 or so years. Not only pet food and vet drugs- all of them.

    It’s an eye opener for sure. Louie (posted above) mentioned the feed premix.
    For those connecting the dots while looking at the big picture- there are many more like this over the years.

  40. Nora..Thank you…We are so lucky in my home that everything is well!! Lesson learned!!! And thankfully not learned too late!!

    Louie…I agree 100% that the safest way is just to never buy Chinese, but we have all been put in this position by our government and all the greed there is in the world today. I hope you have read HighNote’s post above as he brings up several excellent points. It is very hard to get totaly away from Chinese products when a label can say ‘made in USA’ and still contain a Chinese ingredient. Sometimes how do we know?? A lot of pet owners have to do the best they can with what they have and most will go without themselves to provide for their pets. That does not mean they love their pets any less. And it doesn’t mean they should not be allowed to have pets. No, I am not accusing you of saying that..you didn’t..I’m just trying to make a point. You and I both have probably eaten something today or in this past week that has a Chinese ingredient and we did not know. We can refuse everything that says Chinese on it and still get caught! You are absolutely right Louie!! I just wish the solution was as cut and dried as not buying Chinese. Please have a little empathy for those that have been caught up in this mess. We should be able to trust the pet food manufacturers to put out a product that does not require a hazmat certificate to handle, but unfortunetely we cannot and we all do the best we can.

  41. I have never fed a treat to my last 3 greyhounds. 2 meals a day and that is it. They do not beg or expect anything other than those meals. Neighbors and vets think I am crazy for not doing so and look at me like I am rude for not allowing them to give my dog a treat. I do not have to feed treats to train them either. Now I am glad that I do not.

    Have you seen the new Iams commercial on TV for the new Dry Digestive Formula for cats? They must want us to think that our pals stomachs are upset because we are not using THIS food? What a slap in the face. I can’t take it any more!!

  42. My Saint will do everything I ask of him without treats. He just happened to like that chicken jerky very much. Stupid me for buying it. We will get along very nicely without it. His treat from now on will be a piece of real cooked turkey or chicken that is fit for me to eat.

  43. I too have had a pet die from these chicken jerky treats bought from Wal-Mart. Any suggestions on what to do? Have any legal cases started??????

  44. Somebody posted that her dog died from duck strips…..made in China….& they were not purchased at K-Mart or Wal-Mart. Beware of any treats, purchased anywhere, that say made in China.

    I think you’d be hard pressed to get any kind of suit going against Wally World. They’ve probably got thousands of highly paid (crooked) lawyers working for the corporate office to protect them against any suits from the Chinese crap they sell to the public. These big corporations are pretty much insulated because they have the money & we don’t.

    Between the plastic sandals that I read about a week or two ago & now formaldehyde soaked clothing for children…..what next? Oh yeah, forgot the lead baby bibs.

    My heart goes out to all those athletes going over there for the Olympics. I hope they have a very large suitcase to carry their own food over there……they’d be foolish to be eating all their meals there. I wonder what they plan to do…….I don’t think they want to see all our athletes dropping from food poisoning.

  45. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/21/3313/
    Efforts to Crack Down on Lead Paint Thwarted by China, Bsh Administration
    …last December, the Sierra Club sued the Bush administration after the Environmental Protection Agency rebuffed a petition to require health and safety studies for companies that use lead in children’s products. The EPA and Sierra Club settled out of court in April, with the administration agreeing to write a letter to the CPSC that expressed concern about insufficient quality control on products containing lead.

    The Sierra Club’s interest in lead paint in children’s products grew out of the largest-ever CPSC-conducted recall. That action on July 8, 2004, targeted 150 million pieces of Chinese-made children’s jewelry sold in vending machines across the United States. Since 2003, the commission has conducted about 40 recalls of children’s jewelry because of high levels of lead.

    In March 2006, a 4-year-old Minnesota boy died of lead poisoning after swallowing a metal charm that came with Reebok shoes. The charm was found to contain more than 90 percent lead.

  46. HighNote asks:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
    I would gladly buy just US made products if I could find any!!!!!!!!!!!

    Highnote,
    While not an end all answer, perhaps this site can help as a start:
    http://www.madeinusa.com/cgi-bin/categories.cgi?sa=31&ea=41

    Janet asks:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
    …Any suggestions on what to do? Have any legal cases started??????

    Janet, the result of a legal battle I bet won’t likely yield a monetary compensation that equates to your cost nor even covers your legal expenses. If you sue, do so knowing it is for your own peace of mind and to teach a lesson and be sure you can afford the cost. You might however join some of the other existing pet food class action lawsuits for perhaps a lessor to no cost alternative. Those will be for more general reasons instead of specifically about your dog. Remember these corporations have tons of money, entire teams of attorneys, organizations like PFI, and lots of fellow defendants to consult.

    As to which suits. There are many. Some are the original Menu foods related melamine class action suits. Those probably will be consolidated in a few years and are unlikely to meet the need for this new item problem. There are some suits in local area specific to their own pets. And there are some that are about consumer product fraud alleging the industry members deceived the consumers with their premium pet food claims.

    If you want to pursue this, you could contact a local attorney on a consultation basis and deciding what to do from there whether it is to do nothing, or file a reimbursement claim, or file a local lawsuit, or form a new class action lawsuit over the chicken strips, or joining an existing class action lawsuit. In most of those cases, you need to preserve your evidence, possibly including the body, your treats and its package, your purchase receipt, and any witnesses names, etc.

    This won’t just be wally world I bet because I’ve seen those strips in the big pet product stores too.

  47. Here are just a few on the list from the Made in the USA website::

    Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing

    Menu Foods, Inc.
    9130 Griffith Morgan Ln. · Pennsauken · NJ · 08109 · 856-662-7412
    Products: Dog & cat food

    Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc.
    320 S.E. Crane St. · Topeka · KS · 66603 · 785-354-8523
    Products: Pet food

    Nutro Of Tennessee, Inc.
    920 Arctic Dr. · Lebanon · TN · 37090 · 615-449-4996
    Products: Pet food

    Ohio Pet Foods, Inc.
    38251 Industrial Pk. Rd. · Lisbon · OH · 44432 · 330-424-1431
    Products: Dog, cat, ferret & horse food

    Doane Pet Care
    218 E. Lincoln St. · Portland · IN · 47371 · 260-726-7163
    Products: Pet food

    Diamond Pet Foods
    Hwy. B · Meta · MO · 65058 · 573-229-4203
    Products: Dry pet food

    http://www.madeinusa.com/cgi-bin/listings.cgi?sa=31&ea=41&catid=311&lid=311111&S=&&start=&start=&sort=

    and the list goes on and on and on….

  48. I have thirteen hundred dollars in vet bills because my dog loved Bestros Chicken Jerky Strips. Talked to the manager of my local walmart today and his words were “O well, sorry”. I told him anything that can go into the mouth of man or beast will be purchased elsewhere. I am now in the process of throwing all vitamins and personal hygiene products and dog food purchased at walmart in the trash. The health of my family and dog are not worth the few dollars saved

  49. They sell chicken jerky for dogs at Costco that is manufactured in China and looks the same as the photo of the bag that is in recall. I am going to take it back and insist they alert customers that they are selling pet food from China that has been linked to poisonous substances. Saving money on chinese imports is literally biting us in the behinds…

  50. Here is another story of a dog that died from eating the chicken jerky strips. This couple is also looking for help from other pet owners who have gone through the same situation. They also said Wal-Mart is giving them the runaround.

    Our pet Rosie, a 3 year old Chihuahua was poisoned from Chinese made Bestro’s Jerky Chicken Strips #77849 00006 1 We have this contaminated bag. We have three Chihuahuas and one of them died one month ago. She started with vomiting and dehydration and then we were told she may either have an obstruction or have been poisioned. Since our dogs are inside dogs and we are with them at all times outside we thought it was an obstruction. Finally the doctor said he was almost positive it was some kind of poisoning at Elwood Animal Clinic in Glendora, California…

    Here is the rest of the comment:

    http://www.itchmo.com/more-recalled-menu-foods-pet-food-found-in-wal-mart-2463#comment-50406

  51. I have 4 dogs that at the beginning of the year were all on the verge of Kidney failuar due to the high sodium content in Chicken Strips or so we thought. I just left the vet today and he shared the info about the Walmart chicken strips with me. His words to me were we really skirted a major issue by taking blood work yearly on your dogs and taking them off the chicken strips. The strips we used were the ones from Sams called Wagon tails. I wish someone would test them next, I bet that these will test bad also. Dogs were not ment to have extra sodium, so all of those folks that want to feed chicken strips, consider using the ones out by Dogswell. They are advertised to be cage free chickens, no Hormones, No Antibiotics, No Fillers, No Byproducts and no added salt. Please remember that treats are ment to be fed in moderation.

  52. I recently had a not even 7 yr old healthy yellow lab die. I strongly believe it is because of the chicken strips. He exhibited all of the symptoms of renal failure which we contributed to the 100 degree weather. He was drinking a lot more, having to go out more, lethargic and just not himself. He died while we were on vacation (we had people checking on him 2 and 3 times daily) He is buried in my backyard and I visit him at least 2x a day and cry all day because he was like a child to me. I am angry and mad that something I bought as consumable probably killed him and I gave it to him. How many dogs have to become ill or die before an offficial recall will be executed? Many of you are lucky to have vet bills…You still have your babies and I don’t…

  53. Bestros Chicken Jerky , I truly believe this caused my dog to have chronic kidney disease. She ate it and became deathly ill, she takes approximately
    $500 a month in treatments and medicine and is holding her own.
    Please beware of this….

  54. I have 3 dogs that have kidney disease from eating Bestros Chicken Jerky. I have not found anyone else that is battling this problem. All that I’ve met had dogs that ate it and died. If you have a dog that ate Bestros Chicken Jerky and is still alive, I would love to hear from you. Carmella (I hope your dog is doing well) and anyone else out there… please send me an email at westhamfan@aol.com
    My veterinary bills are astronomical, as are my dog’s BUN levels. If you think your dog recovered from this poison, I would be willing to bet that you are mistaken. Two of mine seem ok, but their BUN levels are abnormally high, thus indicating kidney disease most likely in the renal tubes. Please email me to compare notes! Hugs & prayers. Diana

  55. I have a 7 year old Shih-Tzh who was recently diagnosed with Fanconi Syndrome which was caused from eating the waggontails chicken jerky treats from Wal-Mart. She was in the hospital hooked up to iv’s for two weeks. I saw a specialist in Los Angeles who sent a urine specimen to Philadelphia and it was determined to be caused by the chicken jerky treats. My vet bills total over 10,000 dollars and I would really like to be reimbursed. The vet bills will continue for a long period of time. Her kidney levels have to be tested bi-weekly. I am very tnankful that she is still alive, however she will never be the same little princess that she was. She still cannot make it up the back step into the patio door of the house. Someone must stop these companies………

  56. Pingyang Pet Product and Shanghai Bestros are actually the same family under the “Liu’s Family”, Pingyang Pet Product Ltd was set up by the father and Bestros is run by the son. Walmart tried to claim over RMB 10 million, but Pingying Pet Product Lt.d refused to settle and shut down the factory 2 months after the disaster. Bestros is still very active in the trade show, but changed all the sales people, the Liu’s family, Liu Shang Wu, is still behind the operation, but he keeps hiding, cos all the big buyers know him and recognize his face. BESTROS is the name you should NOT buy from. To verify this message, you may email me on athenagong@gmail.com

  57. Unfortunately I do not agree with Athena’s opinion. I am from China,and I am selling aquarium food from south of China.I can told all of you some info. that you may never hear from USA media.

    Recently I heard a news that a Chinese company named Wanpy was found Melamine in their chicken at US port, when this happened and approved to be truth, China Inspection Quarantine(CIQ,like FDA in US) hold all the goods from this company, and also the company’s warehouse was sealed up by officer. China has very strict regulation on product safety, and this will be more and more strictly especially considering recent contamination in milk product, several very big company is forced to close down and bankrupt.

    I know USA has many claim on Chinese dog food, not only chicken. If Bestro really has a problem, that China government and FDA should already shut down this company without any mercy. Safety is everybody’s concern in these hard days, each food company who is still alive in the business world shoudl pay much more attention than they used to do.All the company from all over the world should be responsible for their food product.

    Just like the new US president Mr. Obama says, it’s time to make some change.

    To Ms. Athena Gong,

    I do not have time to argue with you, but I know the industrial well, and I know many companies making dog food, and many factories making chicken. Some of your info. is not correct, you are hiding some truth, and you are confusing the public.CIQ and FDA will not protect a company who really has a safety problem.If you envy other competitors who have better sales than you, you better to do things good and review your sales rep., it does not help to increase your sales and company management by expressing some uncorrect info. God luck.

  58. Unfortunately I do not agree with Athena’s opinion. I am from south of China,and I am selling aquarium I can told all of you some info. that you may never hear from USA media.

    Recently I heard a news that a Chinese company named Wanpy was found Melamine in their chicken at US port, when this happened and approved to be truth, China Inspection Quarantine(CIQ,like FDA in US) hold all the goods from this company, and also the company’s warehouse was sealed up by officer. China has very strict regulation on product safety, and this will be more and more strictly especially considering recent contamination in milk product, several very big company is forced to close down and bankrupt.

    I know USA has many claim on Chinese dog food, not only chicken. If Bestro really has a problem, that China government and FDA should already shut down this company without any mercy. Safety is everybody’s concern in these hard days, each food company who is still alive in the business world shoudl pay much more attention than they used to do.All the company from all over the world should be responsible for their food product.

    Just like the new US president Mr. Obama says, it’s time to make some change.

    To Ms. Athena Gong,

    I do not have time to argue with you, but I know the industrial well, and I know many companies making dog food, and many factories making chicken. Some of your info. is not correct, you are hiding some truth, and you are confusing the public.CIQ and FDA will not protect a company who really has a safety problem.If you envy other competitors who have better sales than you, you better to do things good and review your sales rep., it does not help to increase your sales and company management by expressing some uncorrect info. God luck.

Comments are closed.