Whole Dog Journal's Blog February 17, 2017

Canned Dog Food Recall Gives Rise to More Questions Than Answers

Posted at 11:27AM - Comments: (34)

The Evanger's Hunk of Beef canned dog food recall, investigated and reported by WDJ editor Nancy Kerns.

This article was originally published in early Feb. 2017. Updates are in bold below.

On February 3, 2017, the FDA announced that Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food had recalled five lots of its canned Hunk of Beef dog food, for a “potential contaminant,” pentobarbital. One dog has died after eating the food, and three others were sickened. All four dogs belong to the same family, and ate food from the same can of food. [Note that various media outlets, including the original television broadcast with the owner on camera, have reported that the family brought four dogs to the veterinarian and one died. The FDA has been reporting that the family brought FIVE dogs to the vet and one died.] The dog that died was necropsied, and some food from the open can of food was tested. The results: both the dead dog’s stomach contents and the open can contained pentobarbital, a drug commonly used to euthanize animals.

Evangers hunk of beef dog food

Evangerís Dog & Cat Food has recalled five lots of its canned Hunk of Beef dog food

Given that the Hunk of Beef food – an incomplete diet meant for supplemental or intermittent feeding – contains nothing but beef chunks, Evanger’s is blaming its supplier of the beef used in the batch of contaminated food. The company has announced a voluntary recall of that batch of food, as well as four other batches of food produced the same week with beef from the same supplier. [UPDATE: Evanger's also makes a food called "Against the Grain," which is not overtly labeled as an Evanger's product. The "Pulled Beef With Gravy" variety of Against the Grain has since been recalled by Evanger's.]

The company says it has terminated its relationship with the meat supplier for both products, despite a 40-year history of doing business together.

No other reports of dogs being sickened by this or other Evanger’s products have emerged.

That’s the short, simple version.

But this is a weird tale, and I suspect it’s going to take a long time for all the details to come out – if they ever do.

Weird thing #1: The owner of the dead dog has exchanged only one brief communication with Evanger’s.

The dog that died and the others who were sickened belonged to a single owner in Washington State. They were all Pugs, who were fed a single can of Evanger’s Hunk of Beef food as a “topper” on their usual dry food on New Year’s Eve (Saturday, December 31, 2016), as a treat. The owner of the dogs claims that within 15 minutes of the meal, the dogs began acting strangely, acting dizzy or “drunk,” and falling over. She took all the dogs to an emergency veterinarian, where all of them were treated, but one dog died.

We have not yet contacted the dog’s owner to verify the exact chain of events, but it would seem that the owner published a post on Instagram some time on Sunday, January 1, blaming the Evanger’s food for her dog’s death.

At 3 am on Monday, January 2, someone forwarded the Instagram post to Evanger’s. The company immediately began trying to contact the owner.

It would appear that on Monday, the owner posted an account of her story on the crowd-funding site YouCaring, asking for help with her dog’s vet bills. Evanger’s, still trying to contact the owner, paid the full amount that the owner was asking for on the YouCaring post, and asked the owner to please contact them.

A local television news station, KATU, interviewed the distraught owner discussing the event and picking up one of the surviving dogs from the veterinarian on Monday morning. This report was broadcast on Monday evening, January 2.

To date, Evanger’s says it has had only one direct communication with the dogs’ owner, a single short email.

The YouCaring page has been taken down. The dog owner’s Instagram page is now private.

Weird thing #2: Meat supplier is as yet unidentified.

Neither the FDA nor Evanger’s has revealed the name of the company that supplied the meat in the recalled lots of food.

In the case of most food-based recalls, whether the product is meant for consumption by humans or pets, if a specific ingredient in the food is suspect, the ingredient is generally traced to its source. What if the adulterated ingredient was used in other food products, elsewhere?

We contacted the FDA and asked why the meat supplier involved in this case has not been named. FDA spokesperson Anne Norris responded: “FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is committed to providing additional information as it becomes available,” and promised that she would be in touch when she is able to provide us with additional information.”

UPDATE: On February 17, the FDA released the following statement:

In its recent press release announcing a limited product recall, Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company, Inc. stated that the beef for its Hunk of Beef product came from a “USDA approved” supplier. However, the FDA reviewed a bill of lading from Evanger’s supplier of “Inedible Hand Deboned Beef - For Pet Food Use Only. Not Fit For Human Consumption" and determined that the supplier’s facility does not have a grant of inspection from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The meat products from this supplier do not bear the USDA inspection mark and would not be considered human grade. USDA-FSIS regulates slaughter of animals for human consumption only. Testing by USDA-FSIS of Evanger’s Hunk of Beef confirmed that the meat used in the product was bovine (beef).

The investigation by the FDA is ongoing and includes examination of the suppliers of beef to Evanger’s and Against the Grain to determine a possible cause for the presence of pentobarbital. The FDA is also coordinating with the USDA to address any possible areas of shared jurisdiction at the suppliers.

Weird thing #3: Dog owner has communicated with bloggers.

A site I would describe as a conspiracy theory pet-food blog seems to have been in contact with the dog owner, and has been publishing highly inflammatory posts about the case. The site also published the necropsy report for the deceased dog, thanking the dog owner for supplying the report and allowing her to publish it.

Further, the blogger published an “updated” (yet undated) post claiming to have received information from a fellow blogger that she “received confirmation from an [unnamed] FDA spokesperson” that FDA testing carried out in the agency’s Veterinary Laboratory Investigation Response Network (Vet-LIRN) detected pentobarbital in “closed cans of food collected from the dog’s owner and from the retail location where the food had been purchased.” There has not yet been what we would consider credible evidence that this is true, nor has the FDA confirmed this.

UPDATE: In the press release on February 17, the FDA stated for the first time publicly that "unopened cans of the product from the pet owner and retailer that sold the products (from the same production lot), were tested by FDA’s lab. All of the samples tested positive for pentobarbital." We have to ask: Why, if this information had been released to a pet food blogger some time ago, could this not have been confirmed and made public sooner?

Most important weird thing (#4): The presence of pentobarbital in a pet food.

The conspiracy theory bloggers and the pet owners who believe them are convinced, despite any credible evidence to the contrary, that euthanized dogs and cats are used as ingredients in pet food, and that any pentobarbital found in pet food proves this.

Pentobarbital is, in fact, commonly used as a euthanasia agent in pets and horses; it is also sometimes used to euthanize livestock – not on commercial food animal production facilities, but on family farms. I, myself, had a veterinarian euthanize my family milk cow with pentobarbital when it was “her time.”

However, no animal euthanized with pentobarbital should wind up in any facility that makes any product that will end up in pet food. There are Federal food safety laws that do not permit dead pets to be rendered in facilities that produce fats, meat meals, or bone meals that will be sold to pet food makers.

Pentobarbital has been detected in dry pet food in the past. The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine began looking into the issue in 1998, and conducted tests on pet foods that year and again in 2000. The FDA issued a “white paper” about its findings in 2002, concluding that euthanized cows and horses that had (illegally) found their way into pet food, but that the levels of pentobarbital found in some pet foods were so low, that they would not pose a risk to the health of dogs and cats that ate those foods. The FDA also stated that every food in which pentobarbital was detected was subjected to tests looking for dog or cat DNA, but none was found.

Off the record, old-timers in the pet food industry will admit that more than 20 years ago, euthanized pets probably were occasionally used by unscrupulous pet food producers as a source of “meat and bone meal.” However, every industry source we have interviewed claims that this could not happen with today’s food safety laws and oversight. Any company that risked such a thing would be setting themselves up for swift financial suicide.

Cows or other food animals (pigs, sheep, chickens, etc.) that die before they can be killed at a slaughtering facility are, by Federal law, not allowed to enter the slaughtering facility, but must be diverted to a rendering plant that makes ingredients for non-food products, such as fertilizer, biodiesel fuel, soap, and candles.

If an animal that was euthanized with pentobarbital was slaughtered and its meat sold for pet food, it would be a serious violation of Federal food safety laws.

We will be reporting further on current Federal laws governing the rendering industry, and explaining the differences between rendering plants that produce meat meals and fats that may be used in pet foods, and the rendering plants that utilize “4D” material (dead, dying, diseased, disabled).

Who is liable?

Pet food companies are technically liable for ill effects caused to an animal by their products, but in point of actual fact, any pet food company whose product harmed an animal will be trying to determine if someone else was at fault. Start the clock on the filing of lawsuits, counter-suits, and finger-pointing.

When a company’s food is actually made by a contract manufacturer, it’s likely that the company whose name is on the label will try to blame the co-packer, saying, “We did not authorize that ingredient/source to be used in our food…it was used without our knowledge.” And the co-packer will shoot back, “The company absolutely knows what we put in their food; here are the ‘run sheets’ that they signed off on, proving they know what was in the food…” They typically sue each other, and then settle out of court, with the case sealed so that the public never learns who was truly at fault, the company whose name is on the label, or the co-packer.

In this case, the food was made by the company whose name is on the label. Evanger’s makes its own food in its own plant – and the food (according to its label) contains nothing but beef. What could they do but blame their meat supplier?

We’ll continue reporting on this story as it develops.

Comments (34)

I've fed Evanger's hunk of beef before, but after hearing of the recall I disposed of the can I still had in my pantry (which was not the affected code!) out of concern for the safety of my boy.... I don't know whether this story has merit or not after reading about the dog owner going "off the grid" and "silent run" so to speak after telling their story.... but I know one thing, I was not willing to take the chance! These stories scare me so much... Pet food companies have come a long way thanks to publications like WDJ educating people and yet they have so far to go. Thank you WDJ for the reporting and keep it up!

Posted by: a69impala | February 19, 2017 6:20 PM    Report this comment


The conspiracy theory bloggers and the pet owners who believe them are ~ NOT ~ convinced, despite any credible evidence to the contrary, that euthanized dogs and cats are used as ingredients in pet food, and that any pentobarbital found in pet food proves this.

This is not the point of the FDA's investigation at all. In fact the pet food (PF) was DNA Species tested. And revealed only bovine (cow) protein. Which may have pointed to a particular supplier. No sane person would believe PF knowingly uses undisclosed protein, unlike decades ago, with the use of horsemeat. The Industry has enough sense to realize doing so would be financial suicide. However, when a company isn't assured of third party supply, that is a problem. Evanger's admitted this by terminating its relationship. Therefore, in WDJ's effort to defend Evanger's, while not speaking to the integrity of the entire supply chain, is also a problem. In testing PF, when valid suspicion arises, species testing is as important as all other testing.

The other part of the FDA report included many problems with (not just one but both) plants in Illinois. Which had nothing to do with their supplier. Including the absence of refrigeration for raw meat. Read the FDA notice for the itemization of problems. Severely unsanitary conditions can explain why certain batches of product "can" make only certain pets very sick from time to time. So when consumers say, it couldn't be the food or the brand, otherwise hundreds of pets would be getting sick (assuming they are also reported) is untrue. More owners should be taken seriously when they believe the PF is a problem.

Whether or not anyone wants to defend Evanger's in particular (for whatever reasons, sans intimidation) there is a consistent narrative concerning the pet food industry (PFI). Surely if the "name" of the company had been withheld, and the same report gone public, people would be VERY alarmed. And would want full vetting.

It is clear how publications can appear to be competitive. Particularly those finding advertising and promotion useful, even necessary, to provide much valuable information. But those which do not, also do not have the time or the bandwidth to print what can't be verified and substantiated by reliable sources. In other words, in a world of increasingly "Fake News" those who only play into "alarmist" theory, will quickly be disavowed and dismissed. For the most accurate report, please read the USDA FDA Notice for details.

Posted by: Pacific Sun | February 19, 2017 11:18 AM    Report this comment

I see update above.

Posted by: gking | February 17, 2017 12:51 PM    Report this comment

The FDA posted a notice today. But this site does not allow links. Note the words, unopened cans and meat not USDA inspected.

Might want to update your original article.

Posted by: Pacific Sun | February 17, 2017 12:46 PM    Report this comment

This is the kind of thing that convinced me to start my dog on raw food that I buy from a butcher shop that has excellent meat for humans. She's happy and healthy.

I've had her almost 2 years (she is a rescue and this is her 4th placement) and took to the vet shortly after I got her; she had an ear infection. Since then she has not been to the vet for anything.

She loves her food and it's really easy and quick to fix, and I love NO cooking.

Posted by: maisie | February 14, 2017 10:53 AM    Report this comment

I would disagree with your disparaging description of a respected food safety advocate as the writer of a "conspiracy theory pet-food blog." Also the assertion regarding "There are Federal food safety laws that do not permit..." seems startlingly naive. FDA compliance policies for pet food manufacture (FDA Compliance Manual: CPG S 690.300) very specifically allow pet food manufacturers to violate federal law.

To suggest that management of CAFO operations where animals are commodities, and to which there is so much information (including photographs, video, etc.) would spend time, money, and effort to euthanize animals with pentobarbital is simply dumb.

An interesting and thought-provoking essay marred by assumptions and incomplete reporting.

Posted by: Peter999 | February 13, 2017 5:56 AM    Report this comment

From Ted Kerasote's Pukka's Promise.
While visiting a rendering plant the CEO replied to Ted :
"We are, of course, paid by the LA County Animal Shelter to pick up animals."
Ted writes, "I could now see that the long pile of dead animals-what looked to be cattle as well as the dogs and cats"...
Pukka's Promise was first published in 2013😳

Posted by: lexi59 | February 12, 2017 3:06 PM    Report this comment

I'm a California lawyer since 1967. This is a direct response to "marylanelesie" comment that damages are limited to out of pocket economic losses and not psychological pain and suffering from loss of a member of a family who is a dog. The law, especially tort law, has had major evolution since Roman Law and it changes with every single case, a process called the common law which is the base of all law in this country, except Louisiana, with exceptions in Louisiana. Suffice it to say, a pet owner's ability to recover damages for loss of a dog member of the family are unlimited, or only limited by the evidence. And all lawyers have something to say about the law. It's the law.

Posted by: herbivore | February 12, 2017 12:35 PM    Report this comment

Interesting. I have 2 points to add.
1. Roxysmom posted "If the cow is alive it can go to the butcher .. if it is dead, it goes for dog food." This depends on where you live. In the rural area where I live it goes to the fox farm, just what it sounds like -- an establishment that raises fox for fur. The local butchers that sell meat for human consumption are inspected regularly and rigorously. I can't speak for the fox farm.
2. I found a hunk of plastic wrap in a can of shredded chicken from one of the most highly recommended dog food companies. I emailed them immediately. They got back to me and asked if my dog had eaten any of it. She hadn't, I found it when I started to spoon out the food. They asked for a sample of the food and the plastic, I sent it, and shortly after received a gift coupon for 25# of their kibble. I had expected possibly a coupon for one or more cans of another flavor, but I was surprised by the size of the gift. I'm still feeding that brand and neither I, nor anyone I've talked to has ever found foreign material in it. The moral I drew from it is that bad things can happen, but ethical companies go out of their way to avoid them and to make up for any that slip through their quality control.

Posted by: peppersmum | February 12, 2017 11:53 AM    Report this comment

Quick note to furbabies: ALL canned foods are cooked in the can! The heat-sterilization that the cans go through "cooks" the food. I can't directly put a link here, so copy/paste this url and then add the appropriate extension at the end See whole-dog-journal.com/news/How-Canned-Dog-Food-Is-Manufactured-20393-1 [dot html]

Also, ALL problems with dog food -- such as foreign objects found, and serious illness following ingestion -- should be reported immediately to the pet food company as well as the FDA:

fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/ucm182403 [dot htm]

-- Nancy Kerns, Editor

Posted by: Nancy Kerns | February 12, 2017 10:39 AM    Report this comment

I had a bad experience with Evangers Hunk of Beef a few years back. I only used it as a topper but every time I used my dogs got the runs, some blood in the stools and two times was going into pancreatitis. I stopped purchasing this version and continued to back a couple of their others again to be used only as a topper. I also had contacted the company to find out if their can liners were BPA free - which they are not. Not only did I find out that they weren't but I found out that they COOK THEIR CAN DOG FOODS IN THE CAN! That was enough for me - never ever bought any of their products again. Leeching into the foods from the liners and cans is not what I want to feed my dogs. As for this recent problem I suspect they've been using animals that were put down with this drug - only way it could get in there. My sister also found pieces of rubber tubing in some of the pate versions - Chewy was excellent in replacing it with something else as my whole family and friends and gun shy on ever using their products again. I've lost one dog due to dry dog food from a late recall announcement back in 2011 - and haven't used dry food since. Best to use a premix and cook you own protein - works great and less expensive - and I know what's in there.

Posted by: furbabies | February 12, 2017 10:14 AM    Report this comment

Interesting comments and, no pun intended...food for thought...if this woman created her story, not only is it a sick thing to do, but she has damaged a company and they will no doubt take action...which will be like getting blood from a rock for what they should be compensated for. So many of us try so hard to pick the best food we can for our pups...and even staying with a company that doesn't use a co-packer is no guarantee as this illustrates. We're all at risk, even more so from having increasingly limited access to information thanks to the powers that be.

Posted by: robin r | February 12, 2017 10:04 AM    Report this comment

Thank you for this. Evangers, in my opinion, is a great, still family owned, company. When I first heard about this, I did my own research and found the story fishy, at best! I'll still be researching this claim and would love to hear more of your findings!

Posted by: Chris Nibbles | February 11, 2017 9:38 PM    Report this comment

I find it interesting that in the best dog food list published earlier by WDJ, Evanger's was not listed as in the past and named in the section of companies that did not supply testing table for nutrients. Is there no screening of ingredients?

I have fed Evanger's for some time and most of their foods are listed as Kosher. This certainly did not pass the Kosher test. I'm still puzzled how this can happen.

Posted by: wags2work | February 10, 2017 7:05 PM    Report this comment

Great article. I am heavily vested in pet industry and over the years have really enjoyed watching the food industry improve and the consumer education excell. This is a complex story, emotionally and in a business sense. Not one quickly resolved either. Unburying of facts is all that can be done.

I lost a dog 4 years ago to Unknown causes and she was only five. 4 days in the ER and many transfusions did nothing. My amazing vet cried as we let her go. Emotional pain is horrible still, but part of life. No monetary value can be placed on it.

The sad trickle down effects of something like this is beneficial to the industry and our beloved pets. We are always learning, improving and sadly...policing and holding those accountable if and when true shortcuts are taken.

At this point, as in any case going to court...I am not going to blame or point fingers nor draw self conclusions for either party. I have fed Evangers, met the distributors and have always felt they have an amazing product that they truly care about.

Posted by: Traci Simon | February 9, 2017 9:00 PM    Report this comment

This just makes me so angry. These big pet food companies try to get away with whatever they can that makes them an extra buck!

Posted by: happydogfood | February 9, 2017 6:55 PM    Report this comment

This doesn't read like the complete story. I know of another dog in NYC with pentobarbital poisoning. The very credible owner reports the dog fell over minutes after consuming Evanger's Hunk of Beef purchased through Chewy. She states she has been in contact with Evanger's and they are paying the dog's medical bills

Posted by: Garrett | February 9, 2017 4:47 PM    Report this comment

Thank you for a different perspective on this story. I first heard about it and have followed the comments on the pet food blog you mentioned and I have to say their storyline doesn't include some of the details mentioned here. Any comment over there suggesting that there has to be more to the story or that the pug's owner is not being very transparent are met with sharp dismissals and accusations of being a shill for Evanger's so I've stayed out it. I don't understand why a pet owner wouldn't just come forward, although allegations of bullying by Evanger's have been made.

Evanger's has had their share of controversies over the years to be sure. But knowing that a typical batch of dog food encompasses thousands of cans, how is it that no other pet owners have come forward with any pet illnesses or deaths? This is a food that is sold by independents. The owner of the small shop would be likely to tell customers about the recall thereby triggering an association with even mild symptoms. This is a big question for me. Hunk of Beef is really a chunk of obviously striated muscle meat, but unless it came from a small animal, the meat would have been spread across many cases of cans.

The second thing that bothers me is the source of the beef that Evanger's used. Why that company not been made public? It sounds like we'll have to wait for the lawsuits to start before we know the specifics. The fallout from that disclosure could cast a wide shadow over the pet food industry.

The silver lining is that every time something like this happens, more people switch to homemade diets!

Posted by: B Dawson | February 9, 2017 4:13 PM    Report this comment

As a veterinary technician since 1972 - and a past police officer for many years..I have my suspicions about that lady owner. No proof mind you, but it seems that her actions were suspect. I have seen so many cases of sick dogs that die from rat poison - people medications...on and on. The owner always follows a different pattern. The go to people are clear. In this case - it seems that she is bouncing around from one unreliable source to another - such as bloggers that have no factual past history into any of this. Seems to me, (and I had to laugh at the wording), there is "alternate facts" in play. And from the vet side....it is phenobarbital that was used for seizures, not pentobarbital. In any event...I only feed my sheltie hard food. I have not heard of poisons being found in dog food here in Canada, however - we DO have a higher standard of processing dog food.
I also find it difficult to swallow - that many many dogs did not die. I am sure we would have had many other fatalities if the food was poisoned. Think of how many thousands of tins are produced from one batch..... Just saying....without prejudice to the dog owner or anyone else. Rod in Ottawa, Canada - a country that can not place a narcissistic person at it top!!

Posted by: vet_tech_Rod | February 9, 2017 3:32 PM    Report this comment

We own a pet supply store and we have had another animal that became sick immediately after eating a can of the Hunk of Beef with one of the affected lot numbers. The dog is under veterinary care and improving. We are on the East Coast btw.

Posted by: BBWoof | February 9, 2017 3:28 PM    Report this comment

Interesting. The dog that died had seizures and they can treat seizures in pets with Pentobarbital.

Posted by: ddemeester | February 9, 2017 2:40 PM    Report this comment

There was an interview, last week I think, with the emergency vet that treated the dog that passed away. What she said is that the dog actually died from aspiration pneumonia - the dog likely vomited and aspirated, and being a senior pet was not able to fight it. So...there's that as well.

Posted by: Fazzysmom | February 9, 2017 2:25 PM    Report this comment

The comments are very interesting with some good points. WDJ's report does say the can of food was tested and found to contain evidence of pentobarbital. As a lawyer, I'd like people to know that bringing a lawsuit for the loss of a pet is governed by laws from ROMAN TIMES (that's right) that the courts still follow. A pet's value is based on damages. i.e. vet bills, what you paid for the pet (same as what you paid for a table or a car or anything that is legally recognized as personal property), and any economic benefit you have enjoyed as a result of owning the animal BUT no damages for emotional loss. This is an area animal rights groups are fighting to have reflect modern sentiments about our beloved pets, but veterinarians of course, do not want that exposure. I love my vets and I see their point. But my pets are my children; to have an animal die from the problems in the pet food industry or incompetent treatment is tragic, if the facts prove that is what occurred. I will be following the updates from WDJ, an excellent source which I've never found to use "alternative facts".

Posted by: mll@marylaneleslie.com | February 9, 2017 1:58 PM    Report this comment

I continue to be amazed that many media outlets seem to have different numbers of dogs she took in. Has she changed her story or is the media just getting it wrong? The drug in question is Pentobarbital not Phenobarbital. It is also unclear whether the dog that died was euthanized or not, if it was, was Pentobarbital used? The real issue is, if this USDA certified supplier supplies to hundreds of companies, how many others are in the same boat.

Posted by: lawanda | February 9, 2017 1:50 PM    Report this comment

I appreciate the fact that you at Whole Dog Journal are telling us as much as possible about this recall. It really does appear that the dog owner may be at fault and not Evanger's.

Posted by: jet4221 | February 9, 2017 1:45 PM    Report this comment

I don't know if this woman is telling the truth or scamming everyone but I do know that I won't take any chances with my two best friends. One of my dogs is 17 yrs. old and it wouldn't take much to seriously harm him. I immediately took all my Evanger's food back to PetLIfe who gave me a total refund. But I did notice Evanger's Hunk of Beef still on the shelf in the store. When questioned about it, they said they got rid of the lots that were recalled. If I was a store owner I would take everything Evanger's off the shelf until more info was available.
Linda B

Posted by: harbormaster | February 9, 2017 1:41 PM    Report this comment

I was fascinated by the article but very confused by the last point. It makes no sense. "Cows or other food animals (pigs, sheep, chickens, etc.) that die before they can be killed at a slaughtering facility are, by Federal law, not allowed to enter the slaughtering facility, but must be diverted to a rendering plant that makes ingredients for non-food products, such as fertilizer, biodiesel fuel, soap, and candles." You do realize these slaughtering facilities often break every law they can. I cannot believe for a moment that someone thinks that these are sanitary facilities that follow every law. Please.

Posted by: nicollejoy | February 9, 2017 1:28 PM    Report this comment

I was told the pug that died was a senior who suffered
From seizures. I remember a time that severe seizures were treated with small doses of phenobarbital . Has anyone checked vet records
From past vets?

Posted by: Doodlehouse | February 9, 2017 1:27 PM    Report this comment

I would suggest doing an internet search on past problems with Evanger's canned food and the company in general. I'm not here to badmouth anyone,I'm just suggesting to look at different angles.

Posted by: Concernedconsumer | February 9, 2017 1:27 PM    Report this comment

It should be noted that along with Evanger's paying her complete vet bill as she posted and requested, she received an additional $2,539.00 from others as she left the Youcaring page up for 1 month after she had received Evanger's money.

Posted by: lawanda | February 9, 2017 1:21 PM    Report this comment

@WholeDog - I understand your concerns about this particular story, however, many would not/do not make the connection between bad health and the animals diet.

Thanks to the Whole Dog Journal, I began cooking for my cats and dogs twenty years ago after the journal opened my eyes to the truth about the commercial pet food industry. Thank you, WDJ! The knowledge has served my beloved animals to amazing good health.

Posted by: Doris Muller | February 9, 2017 1:16 PM    Report this comment

I call BS - all the people that bought that lot of can food and she is the ONLY person to have a problem? Gets her money for vet bills and then goes underground? "Unnamed sources" Really? She needs a lie detector test and Evangers should go after her for libel/slander if she fails. That is akin to me getting gas at Costco today along with HUNDREDS of other people and claiming to be the only one with engine issues afterward.

Posted by: WholeDog | February 9, 2017 12:57 PM    Report this comment

Having worked on farms, I wouldn't be surprised if this is from a disabled cow that was euthanized. If the cow is alive it can go to the butcher.. if it is dead, it goes for dog food.

Posted by: Roxysmom | February 9, 2017 12:48 PM    Report this comment

Interesting article. I wouldn't put it past someone who wanted to make a buck to sell animals that were euthanized. Unfortunately I wouldn't put it past someone who had a "beef" with the canning company to add something. its a sad world.

Posted by: beautysMistress | February 9, 2017 12:38 PM    Report this comment

New to Whole Dog Journal? Register for Free!

Already Registered?
Log In