Transparency in the Fresh Food Industry: Holding Brands Accountable
If you’re a pet parent, veterinarian, or involved in the pet industry in any capacity, you should be angry. I am—furious, actually. Over the past week, two raw pet food companies, Darwin’s and Answers, have come under scrutiny for pathogen contamination, prompting FDA advisories. What’s even more concerning is their inadequate response. This isn’t a minor slip-up—it’s a critical failure that puts the health of pets and people at risk.
Understanding the Severity of FDA Advisories
When the FDA issues an advisory, it’s not a casual suggestion. It’s a serious warning indicating that a company has either refused to recall a contaminated product or has not done so adequately. This means the product in question poses a significant health risk, and the company’s actions—or inactions—are endangering consumers and their pets. Advisories are issued only after contamination is confirmed and a company fails to act responsibly. It’s not the company catching the problem; it’s the FDA stepping in to protect public health because the company didn’t.
The Misconception of “Voluntary” Recalls & “Voluntary” Withdrawals
A common misconception is that “voluntary” recalls are proactive measures taken by responsible companies. In reality, these recalls often happen only after the FDA has identified a problem, leaving the company with no choice but to comply.
In this case, however, Answers Pet Food didn’t issue a voluntary recall, but rather a “Voluntary Withdrawal.” This distinction is critical: a recall indicates a recognized health risk and the intent to remove contaminated products from the market to protect consumers. A withdrawal, on the other hand, suggests a less severe issue and doesn’t require the same level of public notification.
Damage Control
Choosing to issue a withdrawal instead of a recall after testing positive for Salmonella and Listeria is misleading and inadequate. It downplays the severity of the contamination and fails to provide the transparency consumers deserve. This isn’t transparency; it’s damage control, and it raises serious concerns about the company’s commitment to safety and accountability.
Due to the inadequacy and incompleteness of the voluntary withdrawal, it is likely we will see further investigation by the FDA into Answers. Consequently, the FDA may issue a ‘Warning Letter’ highlighting issues and violations that led up to this event. In fact, the FDA has issued a warning letter to the Lystn, the maker of Answers in 2016.
A Disturbing Lack of Transparency
Answers Pet Food’s voluntary withdrawal is still incomplete—covering only three products, while the FDA advisory listed four. This discrepancy should raise red flags for anyone in the industry or any pet owner using their products. Why didn’t the company issue a complete recall? What are they hiding? Even more troubling, Answers initially refused to recall the affected products at all, despite being presented with evidence of contamination. It took FDA intervention to force action, which was ultimately incomplete. This reluctance to act in the face of a known issue isn’t just irresponsible—it’s dangerous.
For a company that claims to be transparent and superior to “big pet food,” this behavior is unacceptable. If you market yourself as different and better, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard—not just when it’s convenient, but especially when it’s not.
Darwin’s: A Pattern of Irresponsibility
Unfortunately, Answers isn’t alone. Darwin’s has a long history of recalls and FDA advisories. Each time, they’ve failed to act with the level of transparency and urgency that consumers deserve. The fresh food industry is built on trust—trust that these products are safe, and trust that the companies producing them are transparent and responsible. When that trust is broken, the entire industry suffers.
Are Some Pathogens Acceptable? The Risk Is Too High
There’s a growing argument in the fresh food sector that some pathogens, at minimal levels, may not be harmful—specifically certain non-dangerous serovars of bacteria like Salmonella. Proponents claim that these can exist in pet food without posing significant risks, citing potential benefits of a diverse microbiome for pet health. While a diverse microbiome can contribute to overall well-being, this perspective overlooks critical realities in the context of commercial pet food.
Pathogen Risks in a Commercial Setting
In a commercial setting, even non-dangerous serovars pose serious risks. One of the biggest challenges is controlling these pathogens and preventing them from growing to dangerous levels once the product leaves the facility. Pet food is often stored and handled in various conditions—conditions that may allow bacterial levels to increase rapidly, especially if the food isn’t stored or handled properly. A minimal level of a non-dangerous pathogen can quickly become a serious health threat.
Moreover, the presence of one serovar, even if deemed “safe,” could indicate that dangerous serovars are also present. Bacterial contamination is rarely limited to a single type. Once a product is contaminated, there’s no reliable way for consumers to know which serovars are present and in what quantity. For immunocompromised pets and people, even minimal levels of pathogens can be extremely dangerous. Pets with underlying health issues, young children, elderly individuals, and those with weakened immune systems are particularly vulnerable.
This is why the commercial pet food industry maintains a zero-tolerance policy for pathogens across all formats—raw, fresh, or kibble. It’s not just about preventing illness in pets; it’s about protecting everyone in the household. A pathogen that might be manageable for a healthy adult pet could be devastating for a puppy, a senior dog, or an immunocompromised family member. The stakes are simply too high to allow for any level of contamination.
The Difference Between Commercial and Home-Prepared Diets
It’s important to note that there’s more flexibility with home-prepared diets if that’s what you choose. Pet owners who prepare food at home do so with the full knowledge that the human food supply is not pathogen-free. They take on the responsibility to handle, prepare, and serve food safely, understanding the risks involved. This is fundamentally different from commercially distributed pet food, where pet parents rely on companies to provide a product that is safe to feed as-is.
Home-prepared diets aren’t regulated the same way because they’re not distributed to the public in mass quantities. The standards are different because the context is different. Commercial pet food, on the other hand, is manufactured, packaged, and sold with the expectation that it is safe for immediate consumption, with no further handling or cooking required. That’s a major difference, and it’s one that companies like Darwin’s and Answers are failing to recognize and respect.
The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: Another Layer of Risk
We also can’t ignore the broader context of antibiotic resistance. Pathogens in pet food, even at minimal levels, contribute to this global crisis. When pets consume food contaminated with resistant bacteria, they can become carriers, potentially spreading these pathogens to humans. This is especially concerning for households with immunocompromised individuals, who are at greater risk of infection.
Antibiotic resistance is one of the most pressing public health issues of our time. Every time a contaminated batch of pet food goes undetected or unaddressed, we risk amplifying this problem. It’s not just about the immediate threat to pets and people; it’s about contributing to a larger crisis with far-reaching consequences. The pet food industry must recognize its role in this issue and take every possible step to prevent contamination and reduce the spread of resistant bacteria.
The Broader Impact on the Fresh Food Industry
The fresh food industry has positioned itself as a superior alternative to traditional pet food—claiming to offer better nutrition, higher quality, and greater transparency. But when companies like Darwin’s and Answers fail to act responsibly in situations like this, they undermine the credibility of the entire sector. Pet owners who have turned to raw and fresh diets in search of a better, more informed option are left feeling betrayed and uncertain—and for good reason.
Let’s not forget, many pets on these diets are already dealing with health issues. They’re often fed these foods because their owners believe they’re making a superior, more informed choice. Feeding them contaminated food is not just a risk; it’s a betrayal. When these brands don’t fully disclose the risks or recall affected products, they’re failing the very pets and people they claim to serve.
Pathogen Contamination: A Serious Risk to Pets and People
It’s not just pets we need to worry about. Pathogens like Listeria and Salmonella aren’t only dangerous to pets; they can also pose a serious threat to people, especially those who are immunocompromised. This is why the FDA maintains a zero-tolerance policy for pathogens in pet food. These products are meant to be fed as-is, not cooked like human food. Pet owners expect them to be safe, and when companies fail to meet this standard, they’re playing with lives.
The Industry Needs to Do Better
The fresh food industry cannot afford to lower its standards. If these brands want to be seen as leaders, they need to act like it—by being proactive, transparent, and accountable. Issuing partial recalls, downplaying risks, and disputing the FDA’s findings without providing comprehensive data only erodes trust. It’s time for these companies to put their money where their mouth is and live up to the promises they make to their customers.
What Pet Parents Can Do
Please review the FDA advisories carefully if you feed your pets Darwin’s, Answers, or any other raw or fresh food diet. Check your lot numbers, take appropriate action, and consult with your veterinarian if you have any concerns. We need to demand more from these companies—more accountability, transparency, and integrity.
And speak up if you’re a pet parent, veterinarian, or someone who works in the pet industry. Share your concerns and experiences. The only way to change this industry is to hold it accountable. Don’t let marketing claims fool you into thinking these companies are better. Ask the tough questions, demand real answers, and make informed decisions for your pets’ and your families’ health and safety.
NorthPoint Pets & Company remains committed to advocating for higher standards in pet food safety and transparency. Our pets deserve nothing less, and we won’t stop pushing for the changes this industry desperately needs.
