“We do not share our product and distribution lists for competitive reasons.”

– Diamond Pet Foods (by email), June 8, 2012

More than two months after its initial recall announcement, and more than one month after announcing its expanded recall of dry pet food manufactured in Gaston, South Carolina, Diamond Pet Foods still has not provided international consumers with a list of countries (other than the USA and Canada) that are affected by its product recalls.

Nor, eFoodAlert has been told, does the company intend to do so in future. In reply to my repeated email and telephone requests for a list of countries to which the recalled products had been shipped, Diamond’s Media Desk put up a stone wall.

It’s not as though I was asking for a list of the company’s overseas wholesale and distribution network; all I was looking for was a list of countries.

FDA, too, has declined to release a list of affected countries, citing “confidentiality” concerns. It is standard practice, though, for FDA to notify all appropriate foreign counterparts in the event of any Class 1 recall, according to Laura Alvey, Deputy Director, Communications Staff for FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. It’s then up to the notified counterpart agencies to decide what to do with the information.

This latest round of futile effort at communicating with Diamond Pet Foods was triggered by a pet owner in Malaysia who communicated with Mollie Morrissette of Poisoned Pets. This consumer purchased a bag of Taste of the Wild dog food with an unusual label.

When he peeled the label off of the bag, he discovered that the dry dog food he purchased from his local supplier was actually included in the list of recalled production codes and bore a Best before date of 19/Jan/2013.

I was able to determine that this stick-on label was NOT affixed by Diamond Pet Foods. “Diamond Pet Foods,” I was told in an email, “does not use a sticker for production codes or date codes. Our production and date codes are printed on the packaging inline after the bag is filled and sealed. Countries may use different date formats depending on the regulation of the importing country.” The company’s reply did not address the alteration in the Expiry date.

UPDATE (June 11, 2012): The pet owner in Malaysia received the following reply from Diamond Pet Foods earlier today:

The distributor made a mistake and did not inform us until your complaint.

They sticker another pet food competitor’s bags and their warehouse over stickered ours by mistake.

They are not authorized to do this and i have informed them of the damage that has been done in particular through comments made in pet food alert.

Disappointed this happened and too bad we did not have an opportunity to investigate and rectify.

Will not be happening again.

Adding to the confusion and consternation are the reports from European consumers. A consumer in Ireland and one in Holland were told by their retailer (Zooplus) that the recalled bags of Taste of the Wild dog food had been retested on entry to the EU, had been found to be safe, and that the recall codes could be disregarded. The original production codes and expiration dates imprinted on the bags by the manufacture were not altered or hidden in Europe.

Pet owners in Australia and Singapore, on the other hand, can breathe more easily than their European and Malaysian counterparts. Formal recall notices for the affected batches of food have been issued by the Singapore distributors, and are posted on the web site of the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore. And the recalled product never was shipped to Australia. I have been informed by a spokesperson at Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that “…manufacturing facilities that produce goods for Australia are all located in California.” Diamond’s California manufacturing plant was not implicated at all in the company’s pet food recalls.

As of last report, the contaminated pet food was the source of 15 cases of Salmonella Infantis infections in the USA and 2 cases in Canada. At least two dogs are confirmed to be infected with the outbreak strain, and dozens of other reports of sick animals – dogs and cats – have been posted by readers of eFoodAlert. The full animal and human scope of this outbreak is undoubtedly far larger than the reported numbers of cases.

More worrisome than the actual numbers, however, is the inadequacy of the notification system. It’s usual for FDA to include in its Weekly Enforcement Reports (one of which will almost certainly summarize the Diamond Pet Food recalls – eventually) a list of countries to which a recalled product was shipped. But by then, the information will be irrelevant. Why not release this information when it can be of some use?

And why is Diamond Pet Foods making such a secret of which countries were the recipients of the recalled products?

Routine testing carried out by the state of Ohio was responsible for the discovery of Salmonella in Diamond Pet Foods’ Diamond Naturals Small Breed Adult Dog Lamb & Rice Formula. The finding resulted in the recall of one production code (DSL 0801) of the dry dog food earlier this month.

The contaminated product, which was recalled on May 18th, was manufactured at Diamond’s Meta, Missouri facility, and not at the Gaston (South Carolina) production plant. The Gaston facility has been the focus of a foodborne disease outbreak investigation since mid-March.

The Salmonella found by Ohio in the Missouri-made product has been identified as Salmonella Liverpool, according to Laura Alvey, Deputy Director of Communications Staff for FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. The strain is different from the Salmonella Infantis outbreak strain that was recovered from dry pet food manufactured at the Company’s Gaston facility.

According to the Company’s recall notice, the affected pet food was distributed in Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin (but not in Ohio). The company added that further distribution through other pet food channels may have occurred.

This latest information underscores some important lessons:

1. Diamond Pet Foods has “issues” in more than one of its manufacturing facilities;
2. Routine finished product testing carried out by state agencies is an important food safety enforcement tool; and
3. The list of states to which the recalled food was distributed is unreliable, as it does not take into account redistribution or internet-based sales.

Finally, protect yourself, your family members and your pets from becoming statistics in the Diamond Pet Foods outbreak, by taking the following precautions:

• Check your supply of pet food to see whether it is affected by the recall. If it is on the recall list, either throw it away or return the unused portion to the retailer.
• If you have handled one of the recalled products and you develop symptoms of Salmonella (stomach ache, diarrhea, etc), seek immediate medical attention and mention the possible link to pet food.
• If your dog or cat was fed one of the recalled products and develops symptoms of gastrointestinal illness (vomiting or diarrhea), seek immediate veterinary attention. Ask your veterinarian to test your pet for Salmonella. If the test is positive, you or your veterinarian should contact FDA immediately.
• Review the FDA Tips for Preventing Foodborne Illness Associated with Pet Food and Pet Treats, and follow its recommendations to keep your family and your pets safe.
• Monitor eFoodAlert’s Diamond Pet Foods, Etc. Recalls – 2012 page. It will be updated as more information becomes available.

Above all, be aware that dogs may be infected with Salmonella – and may shed the bacteria in their stool – without showing any outward symptoms of illness. If your pet has consumed a Diamond Pet Foods dry dog food, be especially careful to wash your hands after handling the animal, and supervise closely any interaction between children and your pet.