Mars recalls two Pedigree wet dog food lots after diversion issue

Mars Petcare US has recalled two lots of PEDIGREE® Can High Protein Chopped Chicken & Duck Flavor wet dog food after determining that product intended for destruction may have been fraudulently diverted and sold in the United States. The July 2, 2026 announcement, posted by the FDA, says the affected 13.2-ounce cans may contain sharp metal and plastic foreign material that could injure dogs if consumed. The affected lot codes are 613C3KKCFC and 613C1KKCFC. (fda.gov)

What makes this recall unusual is the supply-chain backstory. Mars said the two lots had failed to meet its internal safety and quality standards and had been sent to a third-party vendor for destruction as part of the company’s quality control process. The company later concluded that the product appears to have been diverted from that destruction pathway and sold anyway. Mars said it is working with authorities to determine how the cans entered the marketplace. (fda.gov)

The immediate safety concern is foreign material exposure. FDA’s recall posting summarizes the issue as potential foreign plastic contamination, while the company announcement adds that the cans may contain both metal and plastic. Mars warned that ingestion could lead to choking, oral or gastrointestinal lacerations, or intestinal blockage. As of July 2, the company said it had received no reports of illness or injury linked to the recalled lots. Consumers were told not to feed the product and to contact PEDIGREE Consumer Care for replacement. (fda.gov)

The broader context is familiar to veterinarians: foreign material remains one of the recognized triggers for pet food recalls, even if the underlying cause differs from contamination events tied to pathogens or nutrient imbalances. Tufts’ Petfoodology notes that recalls can stem from internal company testing, regulator detection, or post-market reports, and lists plastic or metal fragments among common recall causes. In this case, however, the added element of alleged fraudulent diversion may draw more attention than a typical manufacturing defect because it points to a breakdown beyond the production line itself. (sites.tufts.edu)

Outside expert reaction specific to this recall was limited at publication time, but existing veterinary guidance offers a practical framework. Cornell’s Animal Health Diagnostic Center advises that when a commercial pet food is suspected in an adverse event, the first steps are to contact the manufacturer, preserve identifying details such as lot numbers, and involve the veterinarian in reporting and clinical documentation. Cornell also notes that broad toxicologic testing of pet food can be costly and is usually most useful when paired with clinical findings, making careful history-taking and medical records especially important in suspected food-related cases. (vet.cornell.edu)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, this recall has implications beyond routine recall counseling. Because the product was reportedly not supposed to reach retail sale, exposure history may be less straightforward, particularly if pet parents bought cans through discount channels, salvage outlets, online resellers, or other secondary distribution routes. Clinicians evaluating vomiting, dysphagia, abdominal pain, gagging, reduced appetite, or suspected obstruction in dogs that consume canned food may want to ask specifically about PEDIGREE 13.2-ounce chicken-and-duck cans and request lot-code photos when possible. The case also underscores the value of documenting food packaging in the medical record and reporting suspected adverse events quickly, since early reports can help define whether a diversion event was isolated or more widespread. (fda.gov)

There’s also a systems-level lesson here for the veterinary industry. Mars framed the recall as evidence that its quality process identified substandard lots before intended destruction, but the alleged diversion suggests that downstream controls around disposal and chain of custody matter just as much as manufacturing controls. For practices, shelters, and other animal care organizations that buy food in volume, this may reinforce the importance of sourcing from authorized channels and maintaining lot-level inventory records where feasible. That’s an inference based on the company’s description of events, but it fits the central operational risk highlighted by this recall. (fda.gov)

What to watch: The next developments will likely be any FDA enforcement classification, additional detail from Mars or regulators about where the diverted cans were sold, and whether the recall remains limited to the two identified lots or expands as the investigation continues. (fda.gov)