DOJ sues Darwin’s maker over alleged pet food safety failures

Version 2

The Justice Department has escalated its long-running dispute with Darwin’s Natural Pet Products, suing Washington manufacturer Arrow Reliance Inc. and owner Gary T. Tashjian in federal court and asking a judge to halt production and sales until the company meets federal food safety requirements. According to DOJ, the August 7 complaint centers on alleged failures to implement preventive controls and repeated distribution of adulterated raw pet food contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. (justice.gov)

The lawsuit did not emerge in a vacuum. FDA has been scrutinizing Arrow Reliance for years, including a 2018 warning letter that described positive findings for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes in finished product samples, and linked one kitten’s death to Salmonella isolated from both the animal and an unopened package from the same lot of raw cat food. FDA’s broader investigation page says the company had multiple recalls and illness complaints dating back to 2016, with the agency also noting reports of bone shard injuries in some products. (fda.gov)

More recently, FDA issued a 2025 advisory telling pet parents not to feed certain Darwin’s lots after samples tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. That advisory described a 2024 illness in a 4-year-old child who developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, with whole genome sequencing showing the E. coli O157:H7 in an unopened sample of Darwin’s beef dog food matched the organism found in the child’s stool sample. FDA said the child had direct contact with the family dog, but no known direct contact with the food itself, underscoring the zoonotic risk pathway regulators have emphasized for years. (fda.gov)

DOJ’s complaint appears to build on that regulatory history and on the agency’s view that the company did not adequately correct recurring problems. The department said Arrow Reliance’s products have repeatedly been associated with human or animal health complaints, and that the government wants an injunction requiring sanitation improvements and compliance with preventive controls and other federal food safety rules before any more pet food can be manufactured or distributed. FDA has also said the firm did not recall certain affected 2024 lots despite the agency’s recommendation, leaving open the possibility that frozen product could still be in consumers’ freezers because it carried no expiration date. (justice.gov)

The company has publicly defended its safety approach and broader raw-feeding model. On its website, Darwin’s says it uses a multi-step process to prevent or eliminate pathogens and argues that the benefits of raw feeding outweigh what it describes as low and preventable risks. That stance puts the company at odds with mainstream veterinary guidance. AAHA says it does not advocate or endorse feeding raw or dehydrated nonsterilized animal-origin foods, and WSAVA has warned that raw meat-based diets carry contamination, nutritional, and bone-related risks. (darwinspet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinarians, this case is bigger than one manufacturer. It reinforces that raw diet discussions belong in routine history-taking, especially in households with young children, older adults, pregnant people, or immunocompromised family members. FDA, CDC, and AAHA all note that pets can shed pathogens such as Salmonella without obvious illness, which means a clinically normal dog or cat may still create exposure risk for people in the home and for veterinary teams handling feces or hospitalized patients. Practices may want to revisit how they document diet, counsel pet parents on zoonotic risk, and flag raw-fed patients in infection-control workflows. (fda.gov)

The case also signals a more forceful federal posture on pet food enforcement. Rather than relying only on warning letters and public advisories, DOJ is now seeking court-ordered changes before production can continue. For the pet food sector, especially raw manufacturers, that raises the stakes around environmental monitoring, preventive controls, recall responsiveness, and documentation that can withstand FDA scrutiny. That’s an inference based on the government’s request for injunctive relief and the long paper trail preceding it. (justice.gov)

What to watch: The immediate question is whether the court grants the injunction DOJ requested; after that, watch for any settlement, consent decree, additional recalls, or updated FDA advisories that clarify whether Darwin’s can keep shipping product and under what conditions. (justice.gov)