Search raw

test

The H5N1 influenza situation in North America has been quieter lately (apart from saga with the BC ostriches, but that’s a different story). There’s been less spillover into domestic animals recently and less attention in the news, but the virus is still out there and causing problems. (H5N1 flu activity has already started to increase in some areas as the fall wild bird migration gets underway.)

I’ve written about the risks of H5N1 flu (and other pathogens) from raw pet food many times, so the latest report about 2 cats from a household in California that got sick and died after eating commercial raw pet food isn’t a surprise. It doesn’t change anything, but it’s yet another reminder that this virus is still a risk, and there are completely avoidable death occurring in pets (primarily cats).

Both of the cats from the report were nominally indoor only. That narrows down the potential sources nicely to start. Both cats were fed a commercially available raw pet food. The first cat got sick and rapidly deteriorated and developed severe neurological disease. That’s quite common in cases of H5N1 influenza in cats that have been reported to date, but the first cat wasn’t tested. Five days after the first cat got sick, the second cat became ill with similar signs, starting with fever and loss of appetite and ending with severe neurological disease. It tested positive by PCR for H5N1 influenza after it died.

  • With that time frame, we have to consider whether the second cat could have been infected from the diet or from the first cat. The latter would be the worst scenario, as cat-to-cat transmission would be a significant concern, and also indicate potential risk of cat-to-human transmission. Unfortunately there isn’t any way to determine the transmission route in this type of situation.

Further testing showed that it the genotype of the virus from the second cat was the B3.13. That’s the main strain found in dairy cattle in the US, though it is also still possible to find it in wild birds and poultry. Presumably a poultry-based raw diet was the source, but since it was B3.13, I assume they investigated raw milk exposure too, as well as direct or indirect exposure to dairy farms.

The implicated raw diet is currently being investigated. It’s the logical source of infection in these cats, but confirmation would require detection of the virus in the food. Unfortunately, the time lag from ingestion to illness to diagnosis to investigation in cases like this often means the food that was the potential source is long gone before testing can be done, especially with raw diets that are often made in small batches (vs kibble diets). If the lot of the diet is known, then there’s the potential to find other samples from the same lot, but we also don’t know how evenly distributed the virus (or any other contaminant) would be within a batch of food. It can therefore be hard to show a definitive link, but it’s been done before so we clearly know raw food-associated H5N1 flu is an issue.

The report does not name the commercially available food that’s being investigated.

  • On one hand, you can understand why: the link is not confirmed at this point.
  • On the other hand, if there is contaminated food out there that’s yet to be eaten, or if there are sick cats that haven’t been diagnosed because people don’t know about the risk, holding back the information can be a problem.

I understand why this particular information is being withheld at this point, but hopefully more information will be released as the investigation continues.

What should cat owners do?

  • Avoid feeding raw poultry-based diets to cats (and other pets that may be susceptible).
  • If a raw poultry-based pet food is to be fed, use a high pressure pasteurized diet; this will be lower (but not zero) risk for pathogens like H5N1 flu.
  • If signs of illness occur in a cat that’s eaten a raw poultry-based diet, a veterinarian should be contacted ASAP and the raw diet exposure history should be explained. Fever, lethargy and decreased appetite are probably the most common initial signs. Respiratory disease may not be apparent. Neurological disease is a big concern but typically occurs later. If these signs occur in a cat that has been fed a raw diet, H5N1 should be considered, testing is warranted, and there might be value in providing antiviral therapy (if it can be given early enough).
  • We should assume that cats that might have H5N1 are infectious to other pets and possibly people. The risk is probably highest to other cats (since cats are quite susceptible to the virus and cat-to-cat transmission has been shown experimentally) but we can’t rule out the potential for cat-to-human transmission. Keeping the sick cat isolated and using good infection control practices are critical.

The LA County Deptartment of Public Health is monitoring household members and veterinary personnel who were in contact with the cats from this report, and are offering flu testing to anyone who gets sick, but there is no evidence of human disease at this point. That’s great. The risk is probably low, but it’s not zero. When we see a low risk situation over and over again, it eventually ceases being low risk, and then it becomes a bigger problem.

One last thought: Why are we seeing another report of H5N1 in cats from LA County?

  • Do they have lots of people? Yes, it’s a huge county.
  • Do they have lots of cats? Yes, more people generally means more cats.
  • Do they feed raw diets to pets more often? Maybe, but probably not that disproportionately.

The main reason is likely the fact that LA County has an exceptional public health system that does at great job integrating animal health. That raises the concern that more situations like this are likely occurring elsewhere but are going unrecognized. The less robust the local surveillance and communications, the fewer cases are found. I assume there are many more cats that have died from H5N1 flu after eating contaminated food than we know about.

test

Yesterday I wrote about a FDA notice regarding H5N1 contamination of RAWR pet food that killed a cat in California (and likely sickened others, but that’s a guess). A sharp reader pointed me to the manufacturer’s response that must have gone up shortly after I looked at their website. I’ve seen lots of responses from pet food companies after events involving contaminated products (both raw and kibble-based diets); the good companies acknowledge, apologize, indicate what happened (if they know), and what they are doing going forward. Others unfortunately deflect, deny or gaslight.

Let’s look at RAWR’s posted response (“Safety Alert”) to this incident of H5N1 contamination of one of their products. I’ll put on my professor hat and critically assess their document. Italicized text is from the company’s response:

If you know us you know that transparency and integrity are paramount to who we are.

  • Okay, but then why did you only mention this after the FDA released its public notice? That’s not transparency, that’s damage control.

Unfortunately, FDA waited weeks before providing us with any real information that would help guide us to understanding their investigations. When we finally did receive test results, those results were not tied to specific lot codes.

  • (That ticking behind me is my bulls*t meter warming up). I don’t know the details, obviously. Slow follow-up could be a real issue. However, it’s not a reason to do nothing until forced. I’d also be quite surprised if specific details regarding lots tested weren’t provided.

Our reasonable questions regarding the cat, the lot codes, testing methods, and chain of custody have gone unanswered. Instead, FDA declined to provide the information directly and advised us that the only way to obtain these vital records was through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act requests) — a slow process that can take weeks, months or even years.

  • Fair complaint. Although the cat’s information would be confidential, as that’s private medical information.

But if protecting the public were truly the priority, why was critical information delayed for weeks, provided in fragments, and not shared with us until after FDA had already posted a public warning? This approach undermines the very goal of public safety by creating confusion and blame instead of clarity.

Because of this, we did not bring this to your attention sooner; we ourselves have only been receiving snippets of information in an extremely slow and piecemeal fashion. In fact, as I was preparing this alert to you, FDA notified us that they had already posted their public notice – despite us still waiting for our requested information to be provided.

  • Pick a lane. We’re told they didn’t get any information until the FDA released it, that they got piecemeal information and that they were preparing a response when the FDA released their notice (which would require them to know). All these can’t be true. I cannot fathom a situation where FDA would provide no information to a company before a release, and the company’s own verbiage suggests that’s not really the case.

Redirecting blame onto a single small manufacturer does not bring us closer to understanding avian flu, nor does it help prevent future issues in the food supply chain.

  • So? The issue at hand is contamination of this diet, that killed a cat.

Investigations into the death of cats from Avain (sic) Flu seem to only occur when that cat is on a raw food diet.

  • Nope. Investigation is usually started when we find out the cat has H5N1, and we look at how it might have gotten it. Knowing the cat was fed a raw food diet makes us more suspicious, but we don’t just focus on cats fed raw diets.

To date FDA has only two requirements regarding H5N1 in raw pet food: 1. Use only USDA-inspected and passed meat and 2. Include H5N1 in the company’s Food Safety Plan. We are in full compliance with both requirements.

  • Yes, but those requirements don’t prevent contamination, they only help reduce the risk. There is no way to completely prevent contamination in raw poultry.
  • Also, being in compliance doesn’t negate their responsibility to act, inform and take other appropriate measures when a problem is identified.

RAWR has not adulterated any food.

  • That doesn’t matter, as unadulterated food can still be contaminated. This starts throwing terminology around that the consumer won’t understand to make it look like there are no issues with properly handled raw meat.

H5N1 is a naturally occurring virus found in wild and domestic birds. If it is present, it exists in the entire poultry supply chain, as we use only USDA human-grade, inspected, and passed ingredients. If FDA finds this to be an issue then it should be addressed at the USDA level, and not made to be a problem created by raw food companies.

  • Yes, H5N1 flu is widespread. Human grade and inspected are more terms that are used to  mislead people to think that means pathogen-free. There’s a reason people cook raw meat bought from the store before eating it: to help prevent all the various illnesses we can get from pathogens that are not uncommonly present in raw meat.

Sample Lot CCS 25 093, Sell By 10/03/26 was the lot code in question and the only test done on this was from an open household bag that had been opened prior to July 13th. Testing a product 6 weeks after it has been opened makes it impossible to know whether those results reflect the product as made, or contamination from the home environment.

  • The odds of contamination of raw meat with H5N1 flu from household sources are extremely low. There would have to be another source. When we have a high risk product (raw poultry) AND a genetic match for the virus in the cat was also found in unopened food sold by the same company, there’s no reasonable argument that the food wasn’t the source.

Other testing was performed on a different lot Lot CCS 25 077, Sell By 9/18/26 produced a month earlier with entirely separate poultry sources, which does not prove a direct connection to the complaint nor have any other customer complaints been filed.

  • Maybe they haven’t clued into the fact that they are raising major issues here. If H5N1 with a genetic match was found in lots from separate production batches and dates, there was either repeated introduction from their sourced meat (of the same strain) OR they have a cross-contamination issue in their facility OR they have record keeping issues and those weren’t actually separate lots. All of which are bad.
  • The “no complaints” statement is a joke. For a complaint to happen, a sick cat would have to be taken to a veterinarian (when some cats die too quickly from this virus for that to happen, and lots of cats don’t go to a veterinarian when sick), testing would have to be done (that’s probably only going to occur in a small subset of cases), a proper sample would have to be collected (usually not a problem but can be tough with some cats) and the lab used must be able to test for H5N1 flu (not always done). Then, the result has to be reported and investigated, and someone needs to identify the link with the food so the company can be notified. We could have a lot of sick cats that were not diagnosed. I expect reported infections to be a minority of the total infections.

Another piece that is concerning and worth noting is that the initial test results we received, despite not being linked to any specific lot code showed non-H5N1 Influenza A. Only later, after retesting one of those samples did FDA report HSN1 (sic).

  • As above – pick a lane. You can’t say critical information was “not shared with us until after FDA had already posted a public warning” and also make the statement above.
  • I’m not sure what the non-H5N1 statement is about. It could be that the first result was a pan-influenza test that had to be followed up to determine if it was H5N1 flu. I’d be surprised if they told the company they found flu that wasn’t H5N1, then changed the story.

In regards to the cat in question no necropsy was performed. There is still no definitive medical determination of the cat’s cause of death.

  • But they say above that the FDA didn’t answer their questions about the cat. How can they know this? We don’t need a necropsy to have a solid diagnosis (it’s nice, but not mandatory). A positive H5N1 PCR with consistent clinical signs is enough. The FDA report says the cat “became ill with H5N1” so I’d trust they had enough clinical and testing information to make that call.

Out of an abundance of caution, we proactively removed the lots in question (CCS 25 077 and CCS 25 093) from circulation weeks ago.

  • (That big boom was my bulls*t meter exploding. Rest in peace old guy. I know I’ve worked you hard over the years.)
  • So, obviously the FDA reported the affected codes a while ago.
  • I wonder how this was done with no information on the website. They could have had sellers remove product from shelves, but that doesn’t protect people who have purchased the food already. That’s why public recalls are needed. People could still have these lots in their freezers.
  • Also “weeks ago” doesn’t fit with “we only found out last night when the FDA issued their notice.”

If you have a bag from Lot CCS 25 077 or Lot CCS 25 093 and would prefer not to feed it raw, please know that simply cooking the food to an internal temperature of 165°F will neutralize any potential virus.

  • !!! If you have a bag of food that’s been implicated in the death of a cat that ate that batch, this isn’t an “if you would prefer not to feed it” scenario. It’s a clear, firm recommendation to dispose of or return it.

It’s okay to try to protect your company, but don’t insult us in the process. There was clearly an issue with the food that killed at least one cat. Giving us a bit of a mea culpa and a here’s what we’re going to do about it would be good.

Were they apologetic? Not really.

Did they accept that there’s an issue? No.

Did they indicate what they are doing in response to this problem to prevent problems in the future? No.

test

H5N1 avian influenza has dropped of the media radar lately (apart from the BC ostrich farm debacle, but that’s a different story), but that doesn’t mean it’s gone away (and with the fall wild bird migration season looming, we need to stay on alert). The same applies to H5N1 infections in pets from contaminated raw diets: there hasn’t been much press about it, but it’s still an issue, as highlighted by another US FDA notification about a cat death linked to a commercial raw diet, namely RAWR Raw Cat Food Chicken Eats. The cat developed severe H5N1 infection and was euthanized. The open package of the raw diet was tested and it was positive for H5N1 flu as well, and it was a genetic match with the virus from the cat. That’s all pretty clear-cut, unfortunate and sadly not surprising.

Some raw pet food companies have tried to deflect responsibility in such scenarios by claiming an open package could have been contaminated by the cat or owner. In this case there was further investigation which included testing two additional retail (unopened, for sale) samples of a different lot of the same food, and they were also positive for H5N1 flu virus. Genetic analysis was done on one of the two, and it was also a match with the virus from the cat and the other batch of food. It’s even more concerning to have two separate batches contaminated with the same virus strain, as it either means they have repeatedly used contaminated ingredients for separate batches, or they have cross-contamination of batches during production. Both point towards risk that might extend beyond the two lots that were tested.

There’s no word about a recall and nothing on the company’s website about this incident. Affected batches have probably already been consumed (and quite likely killed other cats that weren’t diagnosed) but with sell-by dates of September 18, 2026 and October 3, 2026, it’s possible there’s still some of this food out there in pet owners’ freezers. People who have purchased this diet should check the lot numbers: CCS 25 077 and CCS 25 093 are the known affected lots (but I definitely wouldn’t rule out others being contaminated, either linked to this event or separately). Affected lots (or, really, any lots in my mind) should be discarded, preferably in a manner that also prevents them from being scavenged / eaten by wildlife or any other animals.

Raw pet foods, particularly poultry-based raw diets, will continue to be a risk for as long as H5N1 flu continues to circulate (and that might be a long time). Avoiding all poultry-based raw diets is the best avoidance measure. High pressure pasteurized raw diets should pose much lower (but non-zero) risk, and should be sought if someone’s determined to feed their pet raw poultry. If any cat (or dog) that’s eaten raw poultry develops flu-like illness, respiratory disease or neurological disease, the pet owner should consult a veterinarian ASAP.

For more information on H5N1 flu, including H5N1 infections linked to raw pet food, check out all our previous Worms& Germs posts on avian influenza.   We also have a general infosheet on raw meat based diets available on the Worms & Germs Resources – Pets page.

test

I suspect that people in every decade since the 1940s have said “we really shouldn’t have to talk about why raw milk is bad anymore, should we?” …but apparently we do still have to talk about it, and with certain high-profile characters in the US pushing raw milk, the topic isn’t going away anytime soon. So here we go again…

Pasteurization of milk was one of the biggest public health successes in history.  No matter how well animals are raised and how hygienically milk is collected, there’s some degree of risk of contamination with various pathogens. Pasteurization takes care of that risk for us, while maintaining the nutritional value of milk.

That should be all we need to say, but unfortunately it’s not enough. Raw (i.e. unpasteurized) milk continues to be promoted and sold (sometimes legally, sometimes not). Some people who consume raw milk know the risks and chose to drink it anyway. Many presumably don’t know the risks, or have been misled to assume there are no risks.

I could write posts for days about cases of raw milk associated illnesses and outbreaks, but I’ll spare you that. However, since money drives a lot of the raw milk industry and anything that impacts profits will get attention, I want to talk about a recent lawsuit from a Florida woman who is suing a dairy farm that produced raw milk she purchased, after she developed E. coli and Campylobacter infections and suffered a miscarriage. Her toddler also got seriously ill. She claims that she didn’t know about the risks of drinking raw milk.

Whose responsibility it this? Governments that allow the sale of raw milk? People who sell it? People that gloss over the risks and push it as a healthy choice? Consumers who should be expected to do some degree of due diligence?

Yes. All of them. There can be different ratios of responsibility (e.g. a consumer that was misled by false advertising vs someone who knows the risk but chooses to dismiss it), but everyone in that list has some role. That’s often a challenge with infectious diseases: no one can fix the problem alone, and many players are involved in preventing or causing disease. I’ve had lots of discussions with lawyers who get frustrated when I won’t paint a black and white picture of the lawsuit they’re planning or defending, but it’s the truth.

You could say that the consumer has a responsibility to understand what they’re purchasing and eating. The milk container label apparently indicated that it was only fit for animal, not human, consumption (more of a way to deflect liability than to warn people off, I assume). At the same time, you could say that it’s fair for a consumer to assume that someone who is legally selling a food product is selling a safe product.

The woman in this case apparently asked about the label warning, and according to a news article was told that it was just a technical requirement so sell “farm milk.” That definitely amps up the “someone’s really liable” meter.

Consider an analogy using a car accident: Should I sue a car manufacturer if I get into an accident that was an inherent risk of driving?

Is this akin to a a raw milk-associated infection? Or is it more akin to a manufacturer that sold a car despite knowing it had a correctable manufacturing defect that increased the risk of an accident? With raw milk, it’s probably more of the former, since raw milk that has been otherwise handled and produced appropriately may still be contaminated from the start.

What about the regulator? What if the government allowed a car on the road despite knowing it was unsafe and could be made safer using a practical method? I can make a stronger argument for responsibility here.

Ultimately, many people bear responsibility, and the lack of regulation against the sale of raw milk in some regions is a staggering deferral of responsibility by governments. Sale of raw milk is not legal in Canada but there’s a surprising number of US states that allow it. There’s absolutely no public harm or negative impact on food security, food production or farm income through mandating pasteurization, and one huge benefit (safer milk). So, apart from the overused “freedom” excuse, there’s little compelling reason to allow sale of raw milk. I’m not saying we need a nanny state and that freedom concerns are invalid, but it’s clear that many people (and animals) get sick from raw milk, many of whom don’t realize the risks that they are taking, and there’s an easy way to prevent all those infections.

Maybe this lawsuit will at least stop some of the blatant marketing misinformation that’s out there about raw milk, but there’s so much other misinformation circulating that it might not have much of an impact.

test

Pathogen contamination of raw pet diets isn’t surprising. We know it’s a risk. So a new issue with Darwin’s Natural Pet Products isn’t really surprising either, since they’ve had multiple issues in the past, including ignoring an FDA recall request. They’re back in the news again, but this time it’s because of human illness (with a side of another ignored request). Maybe serious illness in a person will prompt more action, but I don’t see anything about this situation or a recall on their website, so that’s not encouraging.

The latest FDA advisory follows detection of E. coli O157 from a beef-based raw dog food and Salmonella from one duck-based and one chicken-based dog food marketed by Darwin’s. But the really concerning part of the story is how the problem was identified:

  • In August 2024, a four-year-old child was hospitalized with hemolytic-uremic syndrome, a severe and life-threatening consequence of E. coli O157 infection.
  • The investigation led to testing of raw pet food samples from the child’s household, and the E. coli O157 from the pet food was a genetic match to the one from the child.
  • A dog in the household had been sick the day before the child fell ill. The dog’s disease was minor and so it wasn’t taken to a veterinarian. It could have been related to E. coli or Salmonella from the diet, or it may have been unrelated. A link to the diet makes sense though, particularly since the child had direct contact with the dog but not the dog food. There are lots of ways for contaminants from the raw pet to make it into the child, such as cross-contamination in the kitchen, or contact with used food bowls, but the dog is a logical high-risk source.

The time frame is a bit unusual though. The child got since in August 2024, but the pet food wasn’t tested until May/June 2025. The reason for that is not explained, but maybe the family found the old pet food in the freezer and decided to see if it was a potential source, or didn’t think about the pet food until later, and then were able to find some left in the freezer. It seems like the parents directed the testing through a private (but accredited) lab, with info then being reported to the FDA. However, with the genetic match between the bacterium in the diet and the child, and the time frame of when that food would have been purchased (and fed at least in part to the dog) and the child’s illness, it’s a pretty solid story.

Another concerning aspect of this case is detailed in the FDA notice:

The FDA recommended that Arrow Reliance, Inc [the company that manufactured the diet for Darwins] recall the product lots that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. To date, the firm has not recalled the affected products. These products, which were manufactured in May or June 2024, were sold frozen, have no expiration date on the label, and could still be in consumers’ freezers. Therefore, the FDA advises consumers to check their freezers for the affected lots of Darwin’s Natural Pet Products prior to feeding to pets.

How companies can get away with ignoring an FDA request to recall a product that has likely infected someone and caused severe illness is beyond me.

The FDA’s recommendations to consumers are straightforward and are copied below:

  • If consumers have any pet food on the list below, they are advised to throw it away in a secure container. Do not feed it to pets. Do not donate the food.
  • Clean and disinfect all pet supplies and surfaces that the food or pet had contact with.
  • E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can affect both people and animals. People with symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella infection should consult their health care providers. Consult a veterinarian if your pet has symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella  infection. See information about human and animal symptoms below.

Here is the product information on the affected lots, also from the FDA notice:

The affected lots of pet food were sold in frozen 2-pound white and clear plastic packages with four separate units. The beef and chicken BioLogics dog food have orange labeling, and the duck Natural Selections dog food has blue labeling. Product lot codes are printed on the front of the lower left unit of the package. The affected varieties and lot codes are:

  • Darwin’s Natural Pet Products, BioLogics All-Natural and Grain Free, Beef Recipe for Dogs
    • Lot 10662, MFG Date: May 30, 2024
  • Darwin’s Natural Pet Products, BioLogics All-Natural and Grain Free, Chicken Recipe for Dogs
    • Lot 10683, MFG date: June 05, 2024
  • Darwin’s Natural Pet Products, Natural Selections Duck Recipe for Dogs
    • Lot 10638, MFG date: May 22, 2024

test

It’s fair to say that raw pet foods have clearly been source of H5N1 influenza infections in cats, some of which have been fatal – even though sometimes it’s impossible to make a definitive link between the food and infection because of when and how the infection occurred, and what could or could not be tested in timely manner. Sometimes raw pet food companies and their supporters use that missing link as a way to claim that there’s no risk or that the risk is overblown. Confusing (and let’s just say “opportunistic”) communication around test results also adds to consumer confusion – for example, understanding the meaning of “non-negative” test results.

The two most common ways in which the term “non-negative” is used with regard to test results are:

  1. Borderline positive: The test result was not quite strong enough to say it’s positive, but there’s a strong enough signal to make us very suspicious that there’s something there (i.e. the virus of interest). Since we can’t call it a positive or a negative, “non-negative” indicates that the sample could be positive, but we can’t say for sure.
  2. Reportable disease that requires government laboratory confirmation: For some diseases (usually really important ones, like reportable diseases), only the government lab gets to have the final say on the test result. If another diagnostic lab gets a “positive” result (even if it’s a really clear positive), they’re only allowed to call it “non-negative” until the result is confirmed by the government lab. That might mean running the same test, a similar test, or a complementary test. Sometimes, that confirmatory test might actually be less sensitive (i.e. less able to detect a positive), but is nonetheless the test used to provide the definitive answer to determine what response is required.

When we were doing our SARS-CoV-2 surveillance of pets in households with people with COVID-19, we had a few results that were positive/non-negative in our lab but were very close to the cut-off level, and were ultimately just below the cut-off at the federal lab. Those had to be called negative, even though we were pretty confident the virus was present in those animals, such as when we had a clearly positive dog (confirmed by the federal lab) and a non-negative dog in the same household. Odds are very high that the second dog with the borderline result was just shedding less virus than the first dog. But I digress…

Savage Cat Food has issued a recall of some of its raw chicken diets (lot code/best by date 11152026) following infections that were linked to the food and “non-negative” test results for H5N1 flu. . The food was distributed to California, Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington (not Canada).

  • In February, the company was made aware of a cat in Colorado that developed H5N1 flu and that had been fed their food. The cat fortunately recovered.
  • Sealed packages of the food were sent to the Colorado State University Laboratory and were tested “non-negative” by PCR for H5N1 flu.
  • A sample was then sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa for virus isolation testing, which was negative. However, virus isolation is less sensitive than PCR, so PCR positive/virus isolation negative results can definitely occur with a contaminated sample, especially as flu virus is likely to die over time sitting in the food (virus isolation requires the virus to still be viable, whereas PCR can detect “dead” virus).
  • While this was being done, the manufacturer contacted retailers to have them pull the product from shelves.
  • A week after the negative virus isolation result was obtained, the company got a report of another cat with H5N1 flu that had eaten the same lot of food – in New York.

Some people will point to this and say “there’s no definitive proof” that the cats were infected by eating the food. Yes, that’s true, it’s not definitive, but it’s still solid. If they are able to sequence virus from both cats (meaning they find the same virus in two cats from two different states that were fed the same diet that had a PCR positive result) that makes it an even more solid presumptive link. If they are testing other food samples and get a positive, or even just more non-negatives, it reinforces the link further. If they are able to sequence the same virus from the food as they found in the cats, that would essentially be a slam-dunk.

The pet food company has a pretty straightforward influenza alert link on the home page of their website. They’re not saying the food was contaminated, since they indicate it tested negative at the Ames lab, but they are also (unlike some others) not trying to downplay the risk or deflect, so I give them credit for their response. (That said, I still take issue with various statements in their their general FAQ about food safety.)

This company does not high pressure pasteurize their diets. On with website, they say “No, our cat food is not subjected to High Pressure Processing (HPP). HPP can damage helpful bacteria and can change the taste and texture of foods, often times making it unappealing for cats.” That’s likely a big risk factor for why the food is contaminated and why these cats got sick. High pressure pasteurization isn’t perfect, but it’s a good tool to reduce contamination and (despite what the website says) there’s no real argument not to high pressure pasteurize raw pet food, especially high risk poultry-based diets.

The response of raw pet food companies to H5N1 influenza has been really variable.

  • Some have taken it seriously, talked about their risk reduction plans, and not tried to deflect.
  • At least one has started cooking their poultry diets.
  • Some have deflected and tried to downplay any risks.
  • Some are not saying anything.

Hopefully more of these companies are exploring high pressure pasteurization as a risk reduction (though still not risk elimination) method for customers who are still intent on feeding raw diets to their pets.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Agriculture have issued a public health alert because of H5N1 influenza virus contamination of another brand of raw pet food, following the deaths of two more indoor cats from separate households linked to consumption of the pet food.

Details are sparse, but both cats were euthanized due to severe disease from H5N1 influenza. Authorities tested the cats and the food from open containers in the household as well as unopened food samples, and found H5N1 flu virus in all of them. This shows that the food was truly contaminated at the source, and removes the potential that the food got contaminated in the household by the cats or some other source. (In a previous raw food-associated cluster of H5N1 flu infections in cats, the manufacturer of the implicated food tried to suggest the diet was contaminated in the household and was not the source of the virus, which was a very weak argument, and definitely not the case here based on the additional testing).

The recall involves Wild Coast LLC Boneless Free Range Chicken Formula, lots 22660 and 22664, Best Buy day 12/25. However, given that we have multiple instances of fatal raw poultry associated H5N1 infections in cats from multiple companies, the risk probably extends beyond this product.

To avoid the risk of H5N1 influenza from raw pet foods:

  • If raw diets are to be fed, use a non-poultry based diet, and choose one that’s high pressure pasteurized to reduce (though it will not eliminate) the risk.

Image from https://agr.wa.gov/lookuptypes/recallfile/131

The more H5N1 influenza continues to circulate in wild and domestic birds around the world, including here in North America, the more we have to be concerned about exposure of pets to H5N1 influenza through raw food diets. Recent documented infections in cats fed raw meat from infected birds have highlighted these concerns. For more information on the risks of H5N1 influenza from raw diets for pets and associated risk reduction measures, check out the latest quick podcast on Worms&GermsPod.

Find all our podcasts on most major podcast directories, or access them here directly through your web browser.

The FDA has issued a directive to pet food producers to ensure that their food safety plans address H5N1 influenza contamination issues. It’s in response to multiple cases of H5N1 avian influenza in domestic and wild cats fed contaminated raw diets containing poultry. Infection was fatal in many of these cats, and this also puts humans at risk of exposure from both the infected cats and handling the contaminated diets. The severity of disease in cats and the potential public health concerns with H5N1 flu in animals means action is needed to reduce the risk of infections. The FDA notice is directed at any manufacturers that use raw poultry or beef ingredients, but is most relevant for manufacturers of raw diets, since cooking during canned or dry diet production will kill influenza virus before it reaches the consumer or pet. Here’s what the first part of the notice says:

  • “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that it is necessary for manufacturers of cat and dog foods who are covered by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Preventive Controls for Animal Food (PCAF) rule and using uncooked or unpasteurized materials derived from poultry or cattle (e.g., uncooked meat, unpasteurized milk or unpasteurized eggs) to reanalyze their food safety plans to include Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus (specifically H5N1) as a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard. Furthermore, the FDA is issuing this update to ensure that cat and dog food manufacturers are aware of information about the new H5N1 hazard associated with their pet food products, which is an additional reason that manufacturers must conduct a reanalysis of their food safety plans.”

Manufacturers covered under rule mentioned in the notice have a standard requirement to reassess their food safety plan when the FDA determines there’s a need to respond to a new hazard, as they have here.  The notice also encourages producers to minimize H5N1 transmission through practices such as “… seeking ingredients from flocks or herds that are healthy, and taking processing steps, such as heat treatment, that are capable of inactivating viruses.” 

Will the FDA notice achieve much?

That’s a tough question. It won’t likely have an immediate direct impact, as it’s reliant on the companies taking effective action themselves. It’s a directive to consider changing their food safety plans, not a directive to actually do something specific to mitigate risk. Presumably, that’s because there are limits to what the FDA can require; getting into very granular actions (e.g. “you have to do this specific thing”) is likely beyond what the FDA can or would do in a situation like this. The impact will vary between manufacturers, but even if it won’t make everyone do something useful, it should help.

The good, more mainstream raw diet manufacturers are already likely taking the necessary steps to prevent H5N1 flu contamination in their products. Most of these companies use high pressure pasteurization (HPP), which is a useful risk reduction step (although it’s not guaranteed to eliminate risk of all pathogens). I assume the first cases of H5N1 in cats from raw diets already sparked a review of what they are doing and what they can do to reduce the risk of using contaminated meat in the first place.

The all-too-common dodgy raw diet producers usually ignore (or deny-and-deflect) infectious disease issues with their products, and some have been doing the same with H5N1 flu. They will likely continue to do so. Their “reanalysis” might be akin to “yep, we thought about it and we’re good. Go away.”

As is typical, the manufacturers in the middle might be the group where this could have the most potential impact. They may not know much about the issue or understand how serious it is. They also may be at a loss about what they can and should do to mitigate the risk. They probably don’t have much expertise in house to be proactive about emerging issues, and a notice like this helps to ensure it’s on their radar, emphasize the importance, raise some liability concerns (that might be the biggest driver of action for some – getting sued is a big motivator), force at least some consideration of the problem, and point them in the right direction in terms of what to do. It might also be another nudge to introduce better overall practices like high pressure pasteurization and better supply management. 

What else can be done to reduce the risk of pets getting H5N1 flu from raw diets?

It would be nice to have more consumer-facing education about the risks and how to reduce them to help help consumers protect themselves. It could also help drive better manufacturing practices, if educated consumers start spending their pet food dollars on products produced in safer ways. 

What can people do about the risk of H5N1 flu if they are adamant they want to feed a raw diet to their pet(s)?

  • Avoid poultry-based diets (and probably also beef in the US).
  • Use diets that are high-pressure pasteurized, and ask companies about if how the effectiveness of their HPP method is tested (not all HPP is equally effective).
  • Ask companies about their food safety plan and what pathogens they consider in their plan.
  • Use good food handling practices in the home to avoid cross-contamination of human food and other surfaces.
  • Report any illnesses in pets (or people) that might be linked to the diet.

For more general information about food safety and raw diets, check out the Worms & Germs and OAHN Raw Meat Diets infosheet, available on the Worms & Germs Resources – Pets page.

test

Blue Ridge Beef has (again) recalled a diet because of Salmonella contamination – this time a kitten diet. As is often the case, the issue was identified after a pet that was fed the diet got sick. This follows a recall of a puppy diet from the same company in December for Salmonella contamination was identified after a litter of puppies got sick that was identified after a litter of puppies got sick. (It seems like a bit of a “stealthy” recall too, as I see no information on the company’s website about it.) Of note, the company states on its website that its diets are high pressure-pasteurized.

A recall of raw pet food for Salmonella isn’t surprising. Bacterial contamination rates in these diets are high, and recalls are only the tip of that iceberg. Recalls of high pressure-pasteurized diets are more noteworthy but unfortunately are also far from rare.

High pressure pasteurization (HPP) is a process used to reduce pathogen burdens in raw food. It should markedly reduce (or perhaps sometimes even eliminate) bacteria like Salmonella and viruses like influenza. However, as we repeatedly see in situations like this, contamination can still occur. Whether that’s because of an inadequate method for HPP or post-processing contamination is unclear, but it probably relates to using methods that are not adequately tested and validated for the specific food matrix.

These repeated recalls raise a number of issues. One is the standard concern about contamination of these diets with bacteria like Salmonella, that cause disease in dogs and cats, and sometimes owners who have contact with the diets or animals. More recently, we now also have important concerns about H5N1 avian influenza virus contamination of raw meat diets for pets, as multiple cat deaths have been linked to consumption of such raw diets (including diets that were high pressure-pasteurized).

I recommend not feeding raw diets to pets. We cook food for people to kill things that can hurt us, and the same concept applies to pet food. If someone insists on feeding a raw diet, I recommend a high pressure-pasteurized diet to help reduce the risks, but this certainly does not eliminate the risks. Pet owners need to be aware that (despite all the claims on various companies’ websites) there are still infectious disease risks to pets and people with these diets, and safe food handling practices in the home are critical to reduce the risks to people in particular.

Since there’s no health benefit from raw diets beyond equivalent cooked diets, it’s best to go with a cooked diet. Post-cooking cross-contamination of food can also still occur, so while they still aren’t zero risk, they are much lower risk than raw diets.