Tag: Opinion

Absence of pet food regulation puts Canadians and their pets at risk – Opinion

Pet foods “…are not a regulated commodity in Canada.”

According to a spokesperson with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the federal agency does not regulate the safety of domestic pet food.

As a result, the CFIA is sitting on the sidelines of the current investigation into an outbreak of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Salmonella infections that has sickened forty individuals in six Canadian provinces since mid-2020 and sent thirteen of them to hospital.

Many of the outbreak victims are children under the age of five years.

Most of the illnesses have been linked to exposure to raw pet food or to dogs that were fed raw pet food. A few of the illnesses were linked to contact with cattle, particularly calves.

The outbreak strain was found in raw pet food from the home of one of the outbreak victims.

Even so, the CFIA has not initiated a food safety investigation, as no known food source meant for human consumption has been associated with the outbreak.

Canada’s non-existent pet food regulation

“Canadian pet food manufacturers and importers are responsible for the safety and hygiene of pet food, including recalling pet food when needed.” – CFIA spokesperson

Pet owners who want to “buy Canadian” must rely exclusively on so-called voluntary compliance to ensure the safety of the kibbled, canned, cooked or raw foods they feed their pets.

Those pet food manufacturers who are members of the Pet Food Association of Canada (PFAC) voluntarily follow the nutritional standards set out by the American Association of Feed Control Officials.

Although it is the policy of the PFAC that its members implement and follow a recognized food safety program, membership in this organization is completely voluntary. Most members companies are multinational.

Smaller, Canadian owned and operated pet food and pet treat manufacturers—including raw pet food manufacturers—are notable by their absence from the membership list.

Implications for human and animal health

Over and over again, consumers in Canada and the United States have been the victims of foodborne illness outbreaks as a result of contact with pet foods and pet treats.

When a pet food-related outbreak is detected and investigated in the United States and its source determined, the US Food and Drug Administration becomes directly involved in the investigation, including oversight of any product recalls.

In Canada, however, the CFIA only becomes directly involved in an outbreak investigation when it is clear that a food meant for human consumption is associated with the outbreak.

The CFIA does not conduct any investigation of pet foods or pet treats, even when they are identified as probable sources of human illness.

The CFIA does not inspect any pet food production facilities, even when the items produced there have been fingered as probable sources of human illness.

The CFIA does not oversee any recalls undertaken by pet food or pet treat manufacturers, even when these products have been identified as risks to human health.

This laissez-faire policy on the part of the Canadian government is reflected in the duration and magnitude of the current outbreak.

In short, when it comes to pet food safety, Canadian consumers and their companion animals are completely on their own.


“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

Available from all major on-line retailers, including:

Amazon
Apple
Audible
Barnes & Noble
Kobo

“It’s Not Our Job!”

That’s the mantra chanted by FDA whenever they are asked to provide retail distribution information for recalled products.

It’s the mantra offered by some State Departments of Health – and, on occasion, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – when asked for details on outbreak cases in their states.

And it’s the mantra offered by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to justify NOT announcing or publicizing product recalls associated with the Canadian beef in which the agency found E. coli O157:H7.

OK. Let me be fair.

When FDA refuses to release retail distribution information, they say that this is proprietary information and can only be released by the company that initiated the “voluntary” recall.

When a State Department of Health declines to release information on outbreak cases, it’s usually because “CDC is taking the lead in this investigation” or to protect patient privacy.

When CDC declines to release information, it’s because State “X” is “taking the lead” in the investigation.

And, in the case of FSIS, their justification is:

FSIS issues Public Health Alerts to make the public aware of a public health hazard. FSIS is not announcing a recall at this time because the goal of such an action is to have the establishment most directly associated with producing adulterated product remove the product from commerce. In this case, the establishment was XL Foods, Inc., a Canadian firm, and that recall has been initiated in Canada. CFIA is overseeing the effectiveness of the recall in Canada and FSIS is overseeing the effectiveness in the United States. FSIS continues to verify U.S. establishments’ use of primal and non-primal cuts associated with the XL Foods recall and will take appropriate action if prohibited activity is found.

It still boils down to “It’s Not Our Job!”

This rationalization flies in the face of logic, and of what should be the primary role of FSIS – to protect public health. It also is completely at a variance with recent FSIS actions in other recall situations involving “secondary” recalls.

A scan of the Active Recall list on the FSIS web site yielded the following examples:

  • July 14, 2011:- Palmex, Inc. (Champlain, NY) recalled imported, ready-to-eat smoked duck breast products. The product was recalled by the Canadian manufacturer due to possible Salmonella contamination.
  • July 14, 2011:- Sid Wainer & Son, Inc. (New Bedford, MA) recalled imported, ready-to-eat smoked duck breast products. The product was recalled by the Canadian manufacturer due to possible Salmonella contamination.
  • October 1, 2011:- Greencore USA, Inc. (Cincinnati, OH) recalled Thornton’s Quick Café’s Chef Salad products after being notified by its grape tomato supplier that the grape tomatoes used in the products were potentially contaminated with Salmonella. The grape tomatoes were the subject of a Food and Drug Administration recall.
  • February 2, 2012:- Greencore USA, Inc. (Cincinnati, OH) recalled Chef Salad products because the salads contained eggs that were the subject of a Food and Drug Administration recall due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
  • July 27, 2012:- LSG Sky Chefs (Orlando, FL) recalled RaceTrac Chipotle Chicken Wrap, because the product contained diced onions that were the subject of a Food and Drug Administration recall due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
  • August 1, 2012:- Garden Fresh Foods (Milwaukee, WI) recalled 13,600 pounds of meat and poultry salad products, because the product contained diced onions that were the subject of a Food and Drug Administration recall due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

And let’s not forget this example from the Recall Archives:

  • Sysco Seattle Inc. (Seattle, WA) recalls 16,800 pounds of ground beef patties imported from Canada because the patties may have been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The products were manufactured by New Food Classics (Burlington, Ontario) and imported by Sysco Seattle.

So how does FSIS justify its utter lack of leadership in publicizing the product recalls initiated by companies such as Interstate Meat Distributors, Morasch Meat, Wolverine Packing Co. and other US establishments?

Meat processing companies, distributors, food service operators, retailers, AND CONSUMERS deserve – and should demand – the active support of FSIS in this recall. We should not have to rely on retailers’ web pages and on food service companies such as US Foods to provide us with a list of recalled products. We should not have to rely on good luck to avoid purchasing and consuming contaminated food.

If the people at FSIS can’t do their jobs, then they should stand aside and let a more competent crew take over.

“It’s Not Our Job!” doesn’t cut it any more.

Guest Blog: Going Public The FDA Way

The following Guest Blog first appeared on barfblog.com, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Doug Powell.

Going Public: there may be some rules but FDA says they’re a secret

by Dr. Douglas Powell

The same agencies that tout a science-based approach to foodborne illness aren’t so good at one of the 3 legs of the risk analysis stool – risk communication.

It gets lots of pandering, but almost all government agencies and industry groups, regardless of geography, are really bad at risk communication when performance is stacked up against what has been proven to work (not very much).

When to go public about health warnings – like potential outbreaks of foodborne disease – remains contentious. And no one is willing to come clean about it and say, this is when we go public and why. Or at least write it down. Bureaucrat 101 – write it down, have to do it; so don’t write it down.

I understand the flexibility public health types require to do their jobs effectively, but much of the public outrage surrounding various outbreaks – salmonella in tomatoes/jalapenos, 2008, listeria in Maple Leaf deli meats, 2008, the various leafy green recalls and outbreaks of 2010, 2011, 2012, the 1996 outbreak of cyclospora linked to Guatemalan raspberries, and the delay in clamping down on Iowa eggs – can be traced to screw ups in going public.

It’s long been a tenet of risk communication that it is better to go early with public information rather than later. People can handle all kinds of information, especially when they are informed in an honest and forthright manner.

So it’s of no surprise that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) couldn’t find anyone within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to say, this is how we decide when to go public.

“FDA has interim internal procedures describing the steps it will take to order a food recall, but these procedures have not been made public, and the agency has not provided information on when they will be. Federal internal control standards call for federal agencies to clearly document
policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms for implementing management directives and to make that documentation readily available for examination.”

“Similarly, FDA officials told us that they have not decided whether they will issue regulations or industry guidance to clarify for the public FDA’s procedures for ordering food recalls and that FSMA has no requirement to do so. Federal internal control standards direct federal agencies to
ensure adequate means of communicating with and obtaining information from external stakeholders who may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals.

“About a week-and-a-half before our closing meeting, FDA officials provided us interim internal procedures for ordering recalls of food. These interim procedures include detailed information on such topics as which officials are to be involved in an ordered food recall decision and what methods and timelines FDA officials will use to communicate with companies involved in such a recall. The interim procedures also state that FDA is to incorporate procedures into the
agency’s publicly available Regulatory Procedures Manual and other FDA documents. FDA officials have not, however, provided timelines on when they expect to make procedures publicly available.”

And it goes on like that for 61 pages.

GAO recommends, among other things, that FDA issue regulations or industry guidance to clarify its ordered food recall process and implement recommendations from others to address FDA communication challenges in advising the public about food recalls and outbreaks. The agency neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO’s recommendations but cited ongoing agency actions that are to address most recommendations.

To strengthen FDA’s process for ordering recalls, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to document FDA’s process for ordering food recalls in regulations or industry guidance to include information on how the agency will weigh evidence on whether a recall is necessary.

To address FDA’s communication challenges in advising the public about food recalls and outbreaks, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to implement recommendations from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to develop, in conjunction with other federal agencies, a coordinated plan for crisis communications.

To address FDA’s communication challenges in advising the public about food recalls and outbreaks, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to implement recommendations from FDA’s risk communication committee to develop a policy for communications during emerging events.

The full report is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-589.

About the author: Dr. Douglas Powell is a professor of food safety at Kansas State University and the publisher of barfblog.com. Powell is passionate about food, has five daughters, and is an OK goaltender in pickup hockey.