DOJ sues Darwin’s maker over repeated pet food safety violations

DOJ sues Darwin’s maker over repeated pet food safety violations

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Arrow Reliance Inc., the Washington manufacturer behind Darwin’s Natural Pet Products, in a civil action that seeks to stop the company from making and distributing pet food until it fixes alleged sanitation and food safety failures. According to the case description summarized by dvm360, the complaint alleges Arrow Reliance continued shipping bacteria-contaminated products despite repeated FDA warnings, with contamination involving Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. (fda.gov)

The lawsuit lands after years of conflict between Arrow Reliance and FDA. In April 2018, FDA issued a warning letter after testing and inspection findings tied the company’s raw pet foods to contamination with Salmonella, Listeria, and STEC, and the agency said one kitten death was linked to contaminated raw cat food from the company. In February 2023, FDA sent a second warning letter, again citing adulterated cat food products and questioning the company’s pathogen-control approach. The company has also challenged FDA publicly and in court in the past, including a 2022 lawsuit seeking to block an FDA advisory. (fda.gov)

Regulatory pressure intensified over the last two years. In September 2024, FDA warned pet parents not to feed six lots of Darwin’s Natural Selections raw cat and dog food after agency samples tested positive for Salmonella, with one sample also positive for Listeria monocytogenes. FDA said it recommended a recall, but the firm had not recalled the affected products. Then, on July 29, 2025, FDA issued another advisory covering certain Darwin’s beef, chicken, and duck dog foods after testing found E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. In that case, FDA said whole genome sequencing showed the E. coli O157:H7 in a closed product sample was a genetic match to the strain found in a 4-year-old child who became ill in August 2024 and later developed hemolytic uremic syndrome. FDA again said the company had not recalled the affected lots. (fda.gov)

That history helps explain why DOJ appears to be pursuing injunctive relief rather than relying on another warning cycle. While a DOJ press release or filed complaint was not readily surfaced in search results, FDA’s public record shows a repeated pattern of contamination findings, prior recalls, warning letters, and refusals to recall certain later lots. Inference: when FDA documents repeated violations and says prior corrective efforts were insufficient, referral to DOJ for a court-enforced injunction becomes a more likely next step. (fda.gov)

Industry and clinical guidance adds context to the case. AAHA says it does not advocate or endorse feeding pets raw or dehydrated nonsterilized animal-origin foods because of pathogen transmission risks to pets, people, and other animals. FDA likewise says the best way to prevent infection from raw pet food is not to feed a raw diet, and CDC notes that raw meat-based pet foods can carry germs such as Salmonella and Listeria. Those positions are likely to shape how veterinarians discuss this lawsuit with clients who prefer raw diets or use direct-to-consumer frozen products. (aaha.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, this case is a reminder that pet food safety events don’t stay confined to the bowl. They can involve zoonotic exposure, pediatric illness, environmental contamination in the home, and difficult client communication when a company disputes FDA findings or declines to recall product. Practices may want to refresh intake questions about diet type, brand, lot information, freezer storage, and household human illness when seeing vomiting, diarrhea, fever, or sepsis-like signs in pets. It also reinforces the value of counseling pet parents on safe handling, especially in homes with children, older adults, pregnant people, or immunocompromised family members. (fda.gov)

The case could also have broader implications for the raw pet food category. FDA has repeatedly flagged Arrow Reliance products over multiple years, and the agency’s public advisories show concern not only about direct illness in pets, but also household exposure through handling and fecal shedding. If DOJ secures a permanent injunction, it may signal a more aggressive federal posture toward repeat violators in the raw segment, particularly when contamination findings continue after prior warning letters and recalls. That’s an inference, but it fits the enforcement pattern visible in FDA’s record and DOJ’s broader use of injunctions in consumer protection and FDA-related cases. (fda.gov)

What to watch: The next key developments are whether DOJ publicly releases the complaint, whether a federal court grants temporary or permanent injunctive relief, and whether Arrow Reliance issues recalls or announces manufacturing changes in response. FDA advisories from September 20, 2024, and July 29, 2025 also mean veterinarians may continue fielding questions from pet parents who still have older frozen product in home storage. (fda.gov)