There are some worrisome things in reprocessing product depending on
how it is done that are described beginning on page 12 and following there, menusux.
I don't know that they are applicable here at all, of course. And, Kaffe, the schools
are described at the end.

Thanks Sandi for your efforts.  Big or small, these companies need to be accountable.

Jenny

Thanks to Sandi and everyone for your work on this.

Just wondering, but has Evanger's changed ownership or taken on an equity partner?

Sounds like they may need a new management team.

5CatMom
₌^..^₌

Kathy,  I think the implication Evangers made that it was only a problem with paperwork was maybe wishful thinking on their part because FDA indicates it was a little more than just that.  This was what FDA said when I asked them:

"The firm had serious deviations form the mandatory provisions of 21 CFR parts 108 and 113, including lack of documentation of process adequacy and lack of processing filing with FDA for most of their processes.  The firm was operating the retorts improperly (not venting), failing to record critical process information including initial temperatures, temperature recording devices were recording temperatures higher than the mercury-in glass thermometers. The firm's retort supervisors had not attended the required training schools.
 
As correctly stated in the press release, the firm is operating under an Order of Need for Emergency Permit, which means it cannot introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce any of its low--acid canned pet food. The regulation does allow the firm to have a processing authority evaluate the  processing of each lot for adequacy and to submit release requests in writing to FDA for specific lots."
I dont know why Evangers said they arent operating under emergency permit but FDA says they are.  Maybe the info hadnt been given to everyone at their company?  Maybe they arent operating under emergency permit but are supposed to be?  I dont know.  I also dont know why they would say that FDA's news release had false and misleading info in it, what was false?  FDA seemed to be pretty clear about the info they provided.  

One thing I am happy about though is that it appears that FDA did the very thing we have all wanted them to do in the past and that is they prevented something from potentially turning very bad for our pets.  When I asked FDA about everything, they responded promptly.  I sent them a thank you which is something I didnt think I would be doing with FDA anytime soon.  Now I just wish there was enough personnel to be able to inspect all the other pet food companies but I doubt that will be happening.    

Given the FDA explanation of possible bacterial growth consequences of not reaching
proper temperatures in processing LAC pet food and the possible difficulties of isolating
and reprocessing affected product, if ever there was a time for a company to come forward
and say this is what we are doing to monitor the problem, if any, these are our recent test results on pet
food safety, in one consumer inexpert opinion this would be a good time to do it. If you want brand
loyalty by consumers generally worried about commercial pet food safety, that might be
a better way after March 16, 2007. No consumer knows what has gone on here, only the
company and the FDA.

It would really be nice to see safety testing results on product from a manufacturer
whose plant runs, I believe, 24/7 around the clock. No company has published such
results for the consumer to see that I'm aware of to indicate their commitment to
pet food safety first and foremost.

Thanks for that link, SandiK!  So... Joel has responded.

I would like to see the link saying the FDA TODAY has the right to recall pet food ... they were given Broader recall on Human food stuff s ...