Melamine Found In Wal-Mart Bestros Chicken Jerky Strips For Dogs
The 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)
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 am
Am I supposed to be surprised? Because I’m not.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 am
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
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
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!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
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!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 am
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!!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 am
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!!!!!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
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?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
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!
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
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!!!!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:10 am
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 ?????
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Human food is a risky buisness-pet food or treats is totally out of the picture.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 am
Want to fix this problem? The solution is simple:
DON’T BUY TREATS AND COMMERCIAL PET FOOD
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
…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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
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?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 am
…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/c.....839764.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/.....70110.html
http://www.flutrackers.com/for.....hp?t=24995
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/w.....845532.htm
http://www.birdflumonitor.com/
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.....d_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/20.....16pigs.php
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:43 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
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/.....01017.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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Here’s a multi-state list of farmers who will sell grass-fed product: Check it out…Most have meaty bones for dogs. These can be served raw (as in the BARF diet) or cooked -either way.
http://www.eatwild.com/products/multistate.html
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
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…
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
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…
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
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?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
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
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Just when you think you’ve heard it all:
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-b.....amp;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.....-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/w21d.....20026.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/ww....._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.....al/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!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
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!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
From China Daily
The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, says its inventory of stock produced in China is expected to hit US$18 billion this year, keeping the annual growth rate of over 20 per cent consistent over two years.
So far, more than 70 per cent of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China.
Read the entire article here.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/e.....395728.htm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Does walmart have a sale on chopsticks?
Chopsticks Picked Up in New China Scare
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007
A Beijing factory sold up to 100,000 pairs of disposable chopsticks a day without any form of disinfection, a newspaper said on Wednesday, the latest in a string of food and product safety scares.
http://www.newsmax.com/archive.....5608.shtml
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
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!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
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??????
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
[…] at Itchmo on this same subject, there is a photo of a bag of Bestro Chicken Jerky Strips. The photo credit states this bag was purchased at K-mart, not Wal-Mart, which indicates the two […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I think it is about time thay crack down on the Chinese for bad dog@cat food. I hope more get cough.
Nancy C. Dorman;
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Janet,
http://www.mflegal.com/petfoodlawsuit
http://hubpages.com/hub/Class_....._Companies
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/ar.....8/21/3313/
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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
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-b.....&ea=41
Janet asks:
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
&#