Chicken Jerky Pet Treat Alert

FDA is warning pet owners that chicken jerky products imported from China may be associated with the development of Fanconi-like syndrome in dogs who have been fed the treats on a regular basis.

In the last 12 months, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine has logged an increase in the number of complaints filed by dog owners and veterinarians.

FDA first reported a potential association between the development of illness in dogs and the consumption of chicken jerky products – also described as chicken tenders, strips or treats – in September 2007. The first illnesses were noted in 2006 (6 reports). The number of illness reports peaked in 2007 (156 reports), according to FDA Spokeswoman Laura Alvey, dipped to 41 incidents in 2008, and have fluctuated ever since.

In June 2011, the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association (CVMA) notified CVMA members by email that several veterinarians in Canada had reported dogs with Fanconi-like symptoms that could be associated with the consumption of chicken jerky treats manufactured in China. The email included the following warning:

Recently, several veterinarians in Ontario have reported cases of dogs that have been showing signs similar to Fanconi syndrome. All dogs in the reported cases had been fed chicken jerky treats that were manufactured in China.

Signs of Fanconi syndrome can include decreased appetite, decreased activity, vomiting, and increased water consumption and/or increased urination. Blood tests may show increased urea nitrogen and creatinine. Urine tests may indicate Fanconi syndrome (increased glucose). The problem is that this can be confused with diabetes.

The CVMA also notified the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA), which transmitted the advisory to US veterinarians. At the time of the notification (June 17, 2011), AVMA had not received any reports from its members of similar incidents of Fanconi-like syndrome associated with chicken jerky treats.

That situation has changed.

FDA has received a total of 70 reports of Fanconi-like syndrome associated with chicken jerky treats from pet owners and veterinarians so far this year – up from 54 reports in all of 2010. “FDA,” Ms. Alvey reported to me by email, “is actively investigating the matter and conducting analysis for multiple different chemical and microbiological contaminants. We have tested numerous samples of chicken jerky products for possible contaminants including melamine. The complaints received have been on various chicken jerky products but to date we have not detected any contaminants and therefore have not issued a recall or implicated any products. We are continuing to test and will notify the public if we find evidence of any contaminants.”

There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason to the source or timing of the reports – there is no indication that the problem is clustered in a particular state or region – or to the monthly number of complaints, Alvey reported in response to my questions. She suggests that part of the upsurge may be due to increased awareness on the part of US veterinarians and pet owners as a result of the Canadian advisory.

Alvey emphasizes that “no causal link” has been established between the illnesses and the consumption of chicken jerky products. No one has yet been able to find any component in the chicken jerky treats that could account for the illnesses. Nevertheless, at least one recent report offers epidemiological evidence that regular consumption of chicken jerky treats may be behind the illnesses. Veterinarians Hooper and Roberts, writing in the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, described four illnesses in small-breed dogs. This is the Abstract of their published report (emphasis added):

Four small-breed dogs were diagnosed with acquired Fanconi syndrome. All dogs ate varying amounts of chicken jerky treats. All dogs were examined for similar clinical signs that included, but were not limited to, lethargy, vomiting, anorexia, diarrhea, and altered thirst and urination. The quantity of chicken jerky consumed could not be determined; however, based on the histories obtained, the chicken jerky treats were a significant part of the diet and were consumed daily by all dogs. Extensive diagnostic testing eliminated other causes of the observed clinical signs, such as urinary tract infection and rickettsial disease. Glucosuria in the face of euglycemia or hypoglycemia, aminoaciduria, and metabolic acidosis confirmed the diagnosis of Fanconi syndrome. All dogs received supportive care, including IV fluids, antibiotics, gastroprotectants, and oral nutritional supplements. Three dogs exhibited complete resolution of glucosuria, proteinuria, and the associated azotemia; however, one dog remained azotemic, resulting in a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease.

There have been two prior clusters of Fanconi-like syndrome in dogs. The 2007 cases were linked to melamine contamination of treats that were manufactured in China. And in 2009, a number of cases in Australia were linked to the consumption of chicken treats or dental chews made with corn, soy and rice.

FDA has published following information and advice for pet owners:

Chicken jerky products should not be substituted for a balanced diet and are intended to be fed occasionally in small quantities.

FDA is advising consumers who choose to feed their dogs chicken jerky products to watch their dogs closely for any or all of the following signs that may occur within hours to days of feeding the products: decreased appetite; decreased activity; vomiting; diarrhea, sometimes with blood; increased water consumption and/or increased urination. If the dog shows any of these signs, stop feeding the chicken jerky product. Owners should consult their veterinarian if signs are severe or persist for more than 24 hours. Blood tests may indicate kidney failure (increased urea nitrogen and creatinine). Urine tests may indicate Fanconi syndrome (increased glucose). Although most dogs appear to recover, some reports to the FDA have involved dogs that have died.

FDA, in addition to several animal health diagnostic laboratories in the U.S., is working to determine why these products are associated with illness in dogs. FDA’s Veterinary Laboratory Response Network (VLRN) is now available to support these animal health diagnostic laboratories. To date, scientists have not been able to determine a definitive cause for the reported illnesses. FDA continues extensive chemical and microbial testing but has not identified a contaminant. 

The FDA continues to actively investigate the problem and its origin. Many of the illnesses reported may be the result of causes other than eating chicken jerky. Veterinarians and consumers alike should report cases of animal illness associated with pet foods to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator in their state or go to http://www.fda.gov/petfoodcomplaints.

Evanger’s “Muddy” Duck Story

In the latest twist to the duck tale, Susan Thixton, writing in Truth About Pet Food, reports the following clarification from Genetic ID, the third-party lab that tested Evanger’s Duck dog food:

“Genetic ID NA, Inc., the lab used by Evangers Pet Food, confirms the food tested was Grain Free Duck pet food – appearing to be the same food tested by the FDA.”

Susan adds that, as yet, she has been unable to obtain confirmation from FDA that the lot number of the Duck dog food tested by the agency matches the lot number tested by Genetic ID. Evanger claims that both FDA and Genetic ID tested samples from the same production lot of Grain Free Duck pet food.

Evanger’s web site contains the following update to their initial comments on FDA’s Warning Letter:

It has come to our attention that we used the term, “Super Premium Duck” in our response referencing the product that was tested. The product that was tested by both FDA and Evanger’s was “Grain Free Duck” in a 6 oz can, Lot #2401E02DK2. The term “Super Premium” refers to the Evanger’s line of food that the Grain Free Duck is categorized in. Again, both references refer to Evanger’s brand 6 oz duck can Lot #2401E02DK2.

For anyone who is curious about the lot numbering system used by Evanger, “24” refers to December; the third digit (in this case, “0”) represents the last digit of the year of production, meaning that the product in dispute was manufactured in December 2010 – just as Evanger indicated. “DK” – of course – identifies the product as duck. I have been unable to verify the meaning of the remainder of the lot code; I’m still waiting for an answer from Brett Sher on that. I suspect that the day of the month is identified by the pair of digits that follow the letter E.

Assuming that FDA and Genetic ID ran their analyses on samples from the identical batch, we are still left with a significant mystery; namely, how can two supposedly competent labs arrive at diametrically opposite test results using similar analytical methods on two samples from the same production batch?

Also, if FDA didn’t find any duck in the Grain-Free Duck product, what type of meat did they find instead?

I have been in touch with FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, and I am hoping for an answer to these questions in fairly short order. Please stay tuned.

Evanger’s – The Light Dawns

Ever since I received a copy from Evanger’s of their lab report (also posted on the company’s web site), I have been trying to figure out how FDA could possibly determine that there was no duck meat present in their sample of dog food, while Genetic ID – the third-party lab used by Evanger – found duck DNA in the sample that was submitted to them for testing.

My first thought was that there was may have been a significant difference in lab methods used by FDA and Genetic ID. That thought was quashed earlier today, when I ascertained from FDA that the agency used a PCR method – the same type of method as the one used by Genetic ID. Even a slight difference in technique would not be enough to explain a total lack of positive duck meat reaction in FDA’s hands.

I was stymied until I revisited the wording of the FDA warning letter and compared it to the wording of the information released by Evanger.

Here’s the relevant portion of the Evanger statement:

“Our results show that, in fact, Evanger’s brand Super Premium Duck was detected positive for duck…”

And here’s the relevant statement from the FDA warning letter:

“The labeling indicates that Evanger’s Grain-free Duck Pet Food contains duck, but the analytical sample results did not detect the presence of duck in the product.”

A quick review of Evanger’s website brought everything into focus. Super Premium Duck and Grain-Free Duck are two VERY different products!

I challenge Evanger’s to submit samples of the same batch of Grain-Free Duck dog food analyzed by FDA to a third-party lab for testing.

Anyone care to speculate on the outcome?