Category: meat poultry eggs

Chicken Jerky Dog Treats Recalled In Australia

December 10, 2008

The Australian Veterinary Association has warned pet owners and veterinarians to watch for dogs exhibiting signs of acquired Fanconi-like syndrome after KraMar announced that it was withdrawing its Supa Naturals Chicken breasts strips from the Australian market.

The dog treats were imported from China.

The withdrawal comes as a result of an unusually high number of dogs being reported as suffering from symptoms consistent with this relatively uncommon syndrome. University of Sydney researchers have pointed an epidemiological finger linking the problem to the consumption of the chicken treat.

While KraMar has withdrawn the implicated product, the company was careful to point out that there is no direct scientific evidence linking the chicken treats to the problem. KraMar routinely tests these products for the presence of melamine, Salmonella and E. coli.

Fanconi’s syndrome, most often an inherited disease, is characterized by elevated levels of glucose in urine, but not in blood. The high glucose level is an indicator of damage to the kidney’s ability to reabsorb nutrients and electrolytes back into the body.

Non-hereditary Fanconi-like symptoms can be triggered – at least in humans – by a number of factors, including exposure to heavy metals or other chemicals, vitamin D deficiency, or multiple myeloma, among others. While the definition of a “heavy metal” is somewhat arbitrary, this category of chemical elements includes arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium and zinc.

The situation in Australia is eerily reminiscent of a similar incident that took place last year in the United States. In September 2007, FDA warned consumers that as many as 95 dogs might have been sickened – some fatally – as a result of having been fed chicken jerky treats imported from China. Extensive chemical and microbiological testing carried out by the agency failed to reveal anything unusual. At least some of the dogs exhibited symptoms consistent with Fanconi-like syndrome. But FDA never was able to tie down a cause for the illnesses.

KraMar has told ABC News that it is considering moving the production of their Supa Naturals Chicken treat to Australia. Meanwhile dog owners should be watchful for symptoms such as excessive drinking and urination, lethargy and vomiting, and should contact their veterinarian immediately should these symptoms appear.

For more information about the precautionary recall, consumers can contact KraMar by email at customerservice@kramar.com.au or by telephone at 02 4648 8500.

Food Safety And Good Corporate Citizenship

Bill Marler wrote yesterday evening (July 5, 2008):

“Frankly, I think the grocery stores – especially the big box types – need to take a more active role in seeing that plants like this perform – that is – they do not produce meat products contaminated with E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, etc. Perhaps stores should be less concerned about sales and more concerned with safety.”

Bill’s statement reminded me of an experience I had back in the mid-1990’s, when I was Research Director of QA Life Sciences, a company that developed and supplied rapid test systems to the food industry. One of our customers was a supermarket chain (not one of the Kroger’s group of companies).

My contact at Company X was the QA Manager (“Q”), an old-timer who felt a responsibility for the safety of the foods his employer sold to consumers. He was especially concerned about the beef and trimmings that Company X was purchasing for grinding, and he decided to put pressure on the company’s meat suppliers to clean up, or risk losing Company X’s business.

Q adopted our rapid test, which produced simultaneous counts of total E. coli and E. coli O157 within 24 hours. He could then determine the “H7” part of the E. coli O157:H7 within an additional 24 hours. After receiving grudging corporate management support for his plan, Q contacted Company X’s beef suppliers and proposed that they meet specific standards for total E. coli and for E. coli O157:H7.

Q was ahead of his time. USDA had recently (October 1994) named E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef, but not in beef destined for grinding. He met stiff resistance from several of the company’s suppliers, especially for his E. coli O157:H7 proposal. Eventually, he was able to negotiate standards based on total E. coli and E. coli O157.

Why the resistance to completing the H7 portion of the test? Company X’s suppliers did not want to know that their beef was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Were they advised of a positive E. coli O157:H7, they would have to act on the knowledge. But if the test was limited to E. coli O157, the beef suppliers could accept returned meat that failed Company X’s standards and resell it to a less demanding customer.

Q told me on several occasions that his program was successful. The overall safety and cleanliness of Company X’s ground beef was much improved.

The beef screening program stayed in force until Q retired. Company X dropped the program soon afterward.