FirstAlerts

Oma's Pride Recalls Dog Food Over Potential Salmonella Risks

About 639 bags of dog food have been recalled across multiple states due to possible salmonella contamination.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 15, 2026, 8:25 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 15, 2026, 4:44 p.m. ETUpdated Aug 17, 2026, 4:23 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 12h ago

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 17, 2026, 9:37 p.m. ET — checked 12h ago.

The FDA has reported a recall of dog food, involving about 639 bags according to 29news.com, alaskasnewssource.com, kmvt.com, kwch.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com, or according to biztoc.com. The recall was issued due to , as reported by 29news.com, alaskasnewssource.com, kmvt.com, kwch.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com, while biztoc.com reported a . The firm name was reported as by alaskasnewssource.com, kmvt.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com, and as by 29news.com, biztoc.com, and kwch.com. The brand names associated with the recall are , , and Woof Complete. The recalled product is described as by 29news.com, alaskasnewssource.com, kmvt.com, kwch.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com, while biztoc.com described it as . The product carries the identifying code BB012729. Distribution occurred in , according to 29news.com, alaskasnewssource.com, kmvt.com, kwch.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com, whereas biztoc.com reported the product was . Regarding remedies, 29news.com, alaskasnewssource.com, kwch.com, kwtx.com, and wave3.com reported that kmvt.com reported that consumers should .

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 15, 2026, 8:25 p.m. ETFirst report

    Dog Food Recalled Over Possible Salmonella Contamination

    In a developing situation, about 639 bags of one lot of Woof Complete Canine Chicken Recipe in 6-pound bags have been recalled due to possible salmonella contamination, according to reporting from kwtx.com, kwch.com, and kmvt.com citing the FDA. The affected product carries the identifying code BB012729 and brand names Woof Complete, Oma’s Pride, and Oma's Pride. Distribution occurred in Arizona, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Reports differ on the punctuation of the firm name and remedy contact: kmvt.com and kwtx.com name the firm as Oma’s Pride, while kwch.com names it as Oma's Pride. Regarding the remedy, kwtx.com and kwch.com report that customers should stop feeding its contents to their dog and contact Oma's Pride for a refund, whereas kmvt.com reports that customers should stop feeding its contents to their dog and contact Oma’s Pride for a refund.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 517 Aug 2026, 20:23current

    Updated story to include competing details and figures reported by biztoc.com.

  2. Version 416 Aug 2026, 22:41

    Added missing attributions for alaskasnewssource.com across the story and added its URL to sources cited.

  3. Version 316 Aug 2026, 05:09

    Updated attributions and sources cited to include wave3.com.

  4. Version 216 Aug 2026, 01:45

    Updated story to include 29news.com reporting, explicit firm name spelling differences, and complete attribution.

  5. Version 116 Aug 2026, 00:55

    First published.

  6. Version 116 Aug 2026, 00:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.