Manufacturer repeatedly shipped pet food after presumptive-positive pathogen test results

April 13, 2025

During the 2024 calendar year, Morasch Meats, Inc. (Portland, OR) sold dozens of batches of Northwest Naturals raw pet foods and pet treats after the finished products tested presumptive-positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes.

Instead of confirming the presumptive result as required by the test kit manufacturer, the company repeated the same rapid test on fresh samples. When the repeat test did not find the pathogen, Morasch released the production batch for sale.

This information came to light during an Establishment Inspection performed December 27, 2024 through February 7, 2025 in response to a consumer complaint of a cat that had contracted bird flu after consuming a Northwest Naturals pet food. The Inspectional Observations report (FDA Form 483) was obtained by eFoodAlert in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Background

Morasch Meats, Inc. processes and packages meat for human consumption (under USDA inspection), and manufactures ready-to-eat raw pet foods and treats for dogs and cats.

In March 2018, the FDA conducted an inspection of the company’s pet food production facility in response to a finding of Listeria monocytogenes in a sample of Northwest Naturals Chicken and Salmon pet food chubs. The inspector found no objectionable conditions, and the inspection was classified as “No Action Indicated.”

In May 2024, an FDA investigator conducted an unannouced routine compliance inspection of Morasch’s pet food operations. Once again, the inspection was classified as “No Action Indicated.”

On December 20, 2024, the FDA was alerted by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to the death (by euthanasia) of a three year old cat that had become infected with bird flu. The necropsy report summarized the diagnosis as: “severe necrotizing meningoencephalitis, bronchiolar necrosis to necrotizing bronchiolitis, and rare hepatic necrosis due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).”

The ODA collected samples of the open package of Northwest Naturals Turkey Recipe raw cat food that had been fed to the cat. Molecular testing (PCR tests) detected the presence of Influenza A H5N1 nucleic acid in the pet food.

On December 27, 2024, the FDA initiated a new investigtion of Morasch Meat’s pet food operations. That investigation was completed on February 7, 2025.

What the FDA found

In contrast to the May 2024 plant visit, the most recent inspection revealed a pattern of sloppy labwork on the part of the company.

Standard practice when using a test kit to detect pathogens is to begin with an enrichment culture (to allow the pathogen to reach a level that can be detected by the kit).

If the enrichment culture tests negative, all is well. But, if the test kit result is positive (ie., presumptive positive), the enrichment culture is supposed to be processed through conventional test methods to confirm that positive result.

Instead, the company discarded the presumptive positive enrichment cultures in favor of repeating the test kit on a new sample from the same production lot. When the repeat samples tested negative, the company ignored the first (positive) test results and released the products for distribution.

On reviewing the company’s lab test records, the FDA investigator documented dozens of occasions during the 2024 calendar year where the company released product that had previously tested positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes. These included (quoted verbatim from the FDA Form 483):

“At least 27 batches of frozen finished products tested [redacted] had a presumptive positive for the presence of a pathogen. The same batches were re-tested with a negative result…You explained these products were distributed into commerce without any additional processing to eliminate potential pathogens.”
“Your finished product testing for 2024 shows at least [redacted] batches of frozen finished products were tested [redacted] with presumptive positive pathogen (Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes) results. These batches were retested [redacted] and all [redacted] from the initial [redacted] had negative pathogen results. You explained these products were distributed into commerce.”
“Your finished product testing for 2024 shows you had at least 109 batches of [redacted] products tested [redacted] with presumptive positive pathogen [E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes) results. These batches were retested [readacted], and all [redacted] batches from the initial [redacted] had negative pathogen results. You explained these products were distributed into commerce.”

The inspector highlighted in her report that the manufacturing test kit instruction insert states, “Presumptive positive samples should be confirmed as per the laborator standard operating procedures or by following the appropriate reference method confirmation.” This instruction is consistent with standard FDA laboratory procedures as laid out in the agency’s Bacteriological Analytical Manual.

The company’s records also documented at least 20 locations in the production plant that were found to be positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes during the 2024 calendar year.

In addition to the persistent problem of pathogen contamination in the production environment and in finished products, the FDA inspection revealed several other concerns, all of which were documented in the Form 483 report. These included:

Condensate from the ceiling and from equipment dripping directly onto ready-to-eat finished products
Wood pallets in poor repair
Employees moving from handling processing equipment to touching finished product without changing gloves
Employees not washing hands
Deep gashes and missing sections in the area of the metal chopper, with areas with direct food contact filled with product during production and between batch runs.
Vitamin and mineral toxicities of concern were not identified in the hazard analysis
Drug residue concerns were not identified in the hazard analysis

The company’s response

The company acknowledged the validity of the FDA’s observations in a written response in which it promised:

“When conducting tests, we will count the first test as a positive result and not retest. We will use our validated interventions as necessary to accomplish a negative result. The product will be retested after the intervention and results will be logged.”
“When conducting environmental sampling for pathogens and the result of a test is positive, we will conduct a corrective action to determine cause and retest to confirm results.”
“Test procedures have been implemented to Homogenize thoroughly.”
“Vitamin and mineral toxicity have been added to the hazard analysis at the rework step.”

Morasch’s response claimed that the various sanitation observations were addressed during the inspection.

Unanswered questions

During the May 2024 inspection, the FDA investigator noted that “Finished pet food product is released for distribution after microbiological analyses results are cleared.” This same investigator also reported having reviewed the environmental monitoring records for the firm’s sanitation program. How did he miss the all of those positive pathogen results?
Duriung the May 2024 inspection, the FDA investigator did a “walk-through” of the production plant. How did he miss the physical deficiencies (dripping condensate, etc.) that were found only a few months later by a different FDA inspector?
This facility is under daily oversight by the USDA. How were the physical deficiencies described in the FDA 483 report allowed to persist?

A final word

It is a food safety axiom that a negative retest does not cancel out a previous positive result on the same production batch.

Bacteria are not distributed uniformly through a solid food. Especially for low-level pathogen contamination, it is quite common for two different samples from the same batch to produce opposite results.

The use of “retest and release if negative” has been proven over and over again to be not just poor practice.

It is downright dangerous.

“A complete and compelling account of the hidden and not-so-hidden ways the food we give our beloved pets can be contaminated.” – JoNel Aleccia, Health Reporter, Food & Nutrition, The Associated Press.

“An invaluable resource for busy pet owners” – Food Safety News

Order TOXIC now from your preferred on-line retailer

Bird flu virus in raw pet food. A growing concern

Add a third pet food company to the growing list of manufacturers whose raw cat food is suspected of having infected one or more cats with the highly pathogenic influenza virus, usually referred to as HPAI or H5N1.

Savage Cat Food

On February 17, 2025, Savage Pet Inc., a California-based company, notified its customers that Colorado State University Laboratory has tested sealed packets of Savage Cat Food, and had found evidence of HPAI in one of the three lot codes tested. The state lab reported the result as “non-negative.”

The state’s action was triggered by a complaint from a pet owner, whose cat contracted HPAI and recovered.

Lot #11152026 (chicken packets) was reported by Colorado as “non-negative” and the sample was sent to the USDA’s National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) for further analysis, including testing for live H5N1 virus.

Wild Coast Raw

Just three days earlier, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WADoA), in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), alerted pet owners that several cats had contracted H5N1 infections in early February. Due to the severity of the illnesses, the owners of the cats opted to euthanize the animals.

The ODA collected samples from the cats before and after euthanization and recovered H5N1 virus from the animals, all of which were fed Wild Coast Raw pet food before becoming ill.

The Oregon Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory and the NVSL confirmed the presence of H5N1 in the animals and in opened packages of the cat food.

Subsequent testing by the WADoA detected evidence of HPAI in sealed packages of one lot of Wild Coast pet food. Samples from this lot, reported by the state as “non-negative,” have been submitted to the NVSL for more detailed analysis.

A “stop sale” order has been issued in the state of Washington for two lots of Wild Coast LLC – Boneless Free Range Chicken Formula (Lots #22660 and #22664; Best by date of 12/2025).

Northwest Naturals

On December 24, 2024, Northwest Naturals recalled one production lot of its Feline Turkey Recipe raw frozen pet food after the Oregon Department of Agriculture detected highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus in a opened package of the product.

The testing was carried out after a cat that had been fed the product died of bird flu.

According to an update released by the company, Northwest Naturals’ co-manufacturer was subjected to an FDA investigation that began in late December and concluded on February 7, 2025. The FDA was unable to identify the source of the H5N1 virus that had been found in the company’s raw cat food.

What’s with the ‘non-negative’ results?

eFoodAlert reached out to the WADoA for clarification of the meaning of a ‘non-negative’ result (versus a ‘positive’ result), and an explanation as to why the state acted as it did without having a fully confirmed lab result in hand.

A spokesperson for the WADoA provided the following explanation:

“Our state laboratory (WADDL) detected HPAI through PCR testing in the unopened pet food samples. Non negative results indicate the presence of H5. These samples have been forwarded to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) for H5N1 confirmation. As a result of Oregon’s results and our results, we’ve issued a public health alert and a stop-sale on affected product lots as a precaution.”

How is the virus getting into the pet food?

This is the $64,000 question.

All three of these companies claim to use only USDA-inspected poultry meat in their raw pet foods. Indeed, Northwest Naturals’ products are manufactured in a USDA-inspected facility, according to the company.

The USDA states clearly that HPAI-infected birds do not enter the food supply. If that’s the case, the virus must be coming from somewhere else.

Two possibilities come to mind:

The virus might be introduced into the production facility by wild birds roosting or flying about in the plant
The virus might be introduced by infected rodents—rats or mice—entering the plant

Either one of these can, and should, be controlled through proper building maintenance and an appropriate pest-control program.

Why did these recalls not make it onto the FDA’s radar screen?

Of all the outstanding questions, this is the one I find the most worrisome.

All three of these companies appear to have shipped their products across state lines. This puts them under the jurisdiction of the FDA.

Under normal conditions, recalls initiated by FDA-regulated companies are listed in the weekly FDA Enforcement Reports, and recall effectiveness is—at least in theory—monitored by the agency.

Why have none of these three recalls shown up in the FDA Enforcement Reports?

“An invaluable resource for busy pet owners” – Food Safety News

Available from all major on-line retailers, including:

Bird flu and household pets

Highly pathogenic avian influenze (HPAI), more commonly known as bird flu, not only infects poultry flocks (backyard and commercial) and dairy herds.

The influenza A H5N1 virus (the current prevalent variety of bird flu virus in circulation) has been found in a range of wildlife species in addition to wild birds. From deer mice to dolphins, from cougars to coyotes, no mammalian species is completely immune from infection.

In recent weeks, it has become clear that household pets also are at risk.

Which pets are most at risk?

In April 2023, a domestic dog tested postive in Canada for the H5N1 virus after chewing on a wild goose. The dog died a few days later.

Household pets that spend unsupervised time outdoors are at risk of coming into contact with infected wildlife, such as a sick or dead bird or rodent.

The risk is increased if the household also maintains a backyard poultry flock.

Caged birds may also be at risk, if they are allowed to fly free from time to time and come into contact with a wild bird.

Yet, even pets that are kept largely indoors and are under supervision while outside can become infected with the bird flu virus.

Bird flu and cats

Cats are more susceptible to bird flu infections than dogs. There have been several reports of barn cats and feral cats becoming as a result of exposure to H5N1 on dairy farms.

Domestic indoor cats also are at risk.

Recently, Food Safety News reported on a case involving three cats in one household that were fed raw milk from the California company, Raw Farm LLC in late 2024. Two of the cats died and a third became seriously ill. A fourth cat in the household, which did not drink any of the raw milk, remained healthy.

On December 3, 2024, Raw Farm LLC recalled all raw milk and cream products after the California Department of Food and Agriculture found multiple instances of H5N1 virus in the company’s raw milk.

The dairy’s owner, Mark McAfee, denied that his milk was the source of the virus that killed the cats, claiming that the H5N1 virus cannot survive for long periods in cold milk. However, a recent study funded by the National Institutes of Health determined that the H5N1 virus remained viable in refrigerated raw milk for five weeks with only a minor decline in virus levels.

The H5N1 virus can also be present in raw pet food.

On December 24, 2024, Northwest Naturals recalled one batch of Northwest Naturals brand 2lb Feline Turkey Recipe raw frozen pet food after it tested positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. Testing was initiated after a cat that had been fed the raw pet food developed bird flu and died.

On December 31, 2024, the Los Angeles County Department of Health advised the public not to feed Monarch Raw Pet Food to their pets after the H5N1 virus was detected in a sample. Again, testing was initiated after a cat that had been fed the product became ill and was confirmed to be infected with the virus.

On January 3, 2025, Monarch Raw Pet Food Company issued a statement claiming that there was no scientific evidence to substantiate the link between their pet food and the cat illness.

What is the FDA doing to protect pet health?

eFoodAlert reached out to the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and received the following statement from a CVM spokesperson:

The FDA is tracking cases of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in domestic and wild cats in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington State that appear to be linked to eating contaminated food products. No human illness has been reported from handling these foods or through contact between people and the animals.

Some of the animals were fed raw poultry or raw poultry pet food, while others ate unpasteurized milk. The FDA is working with state and federal counterparts to gather more specific information about what animals ate which foods and when, and to coordinate test results of the animals and the suspect foods.

The FDA and state authorities routinely work together to surveil the animal food supply, including pet food. This includes conducting risk-based facility inspections and collecting animal food samples to help ensure safety. The FDA may also collect samples “for cause,” such as when a pet food is suspected of being associated with human or animal illness. State authorities also regularly collect samples from retail settings and share test results with the agency. HPAI is an emerging contaminant in animal food. Analytical capacity is limited and pathogens like H5N1 can be difficult to detect because they might not be evenly distributed throughout the product (increasing the possibility of a false negative result).

Part of a pet food manufacturer’s responsibility is to bring a safe, wholesome product to market that is not adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As we learn more about the transmission of H5N1 in animal food, there are several practices that the FDA is encouraging pet food manufacturers and others in the supply chain to use to prevent HPAI transmission through animal food. These practices could include seeking poultry from flocks that are documented as having remained healthy throughout processing, and taking processing steps, such as heat treatment, that are capable of inactivating viruses and other hazards.

All recent detections of H5N1 in cats had these things in common: the infected cats ate wild birds, unpasteurized milk, raw poultry, and/or raw poultry pet food. We know that cats are particularly sensitive to HPAI, and that very young, very old or immune-compromised animals are at greater risk of infection. The FDA continues to recommend that consumers avoid feeding pets any products that are recalled or from affected farms if those products have not been thoroughly cooked or pasteurized to inactivate the virus. If consumers are unsure of the origin of those products, it’s safest to follow the USDA guidelines for handling and thorough cooking before feeding. Animals should also be kept from hunting and eating wild birds.

What to watch for

Symptoms of a bird flu infection vary with the species. Here is a short list of what to watch for. Contact your veterinarian if you suspect one of your pets may be infected with bird flu. If you or a household member begins to exhibit symptoms associated with the bird flu virus, contact your healthcare provider.