What was recalled
This page documents a lawsuit-only event, not an FDA recall. In August 2018, pet owner Markeith Parks filed a class-action lawsuit (Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition LLC) in U.S. District Court (Southern District of New York), seeking $5 million in class damages on behalf of consumers who had purchased Rachael Ray Nutrish dog food. The complaint alleged that independent laboratory testing found glyphosate residue (the active herbicide in Roundup) plus heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead) in Nutrish dry dog food, inconsistent with the brand’s "Natural" marketing positioning.
The timing context is important: the lawsuit was filed three months after J.M. Smucker’s $1.9 billion acquisition of Ainsworth Pet Nutrition closed in May 2018 — placing Rachael Ray Nutrish in the J.M. Smucker portfolio alongside Gravy Train, Kibbles ’N Bits, and other brands then implicated in the parallel 2018 pentobarbital recall (covered on our Big Heart 2018 page). The 2018 Nutrish lawsuit was part of a broader wave of pet food deceptive-labeling class actions targeting premium-positioned brands. Coverage at ClassAction.org’s August 2018 article documents the complaint allegations.
Why it was recalled
The plaintiff’s legal theory was deceptive labeling under state consumer-protection statutes: that Nutrish’s "Natural" marketing positioning was materially misleading given the presence of heavy metals and glyphosate residue in the product. The case did not allege the heavy metal or glyphosate levels exceeded FDA safety standards; rather, the theory was that "Natural" labeling created a reasonable-consumer expectation of zero or near-zero contaminant presence, which the laboratory findings purportedly contradicted.
The court’s reasoning in the dismissals followed the same analytical framework as the parallel Champion Petfoods (Acana/Orijen) 2018 heavy metals litigation (covered separately): trace heavy metal and herbicide-residue presence is structural in all U.S. agricultural-source food products, including those labeled "Natural" or "Organic"; the relevant question is whether concentrations exceed established regulatory action levels. The court found the glyphosate level in the Nutrish testing was "negligible" and well under FDA limits, and that a reasonable consumer interpreting "Natural" labeling would not expect zero contaminant presence. The case was dismissed in April 2019; the plaintiff refiled an amended complaint, which was dismissed again in February 2020. The pattern parallels the contemporaneous Beneful 2015 propylene glycol case (covered separately) and Champion Pet Foods 2018 / Solid Gold 2018 heavy metals cases — all consumer-protection deceptive-labeling theories dismissed at the summary judgment stage.
Health risks for your pet
No specific pet illness or death cases were tied to the 2018 Rachael Ray Nutrish heavy metals litigation. The plaintiff complaint cited anecdotal owner reports but did not document confirmed clinical cases attributable to heavy metal or glyphosate exposure from Nutrish consumption. The court found the cited glyphosate level was "negligible" and below FDA limits; the heavy metal levels were not alleged to exceed NRC maximum tolerable levels for canine diets. Heavy metal toxicity in dogs from food sources is a real clinical phenomenon at sufficient exposure levels, but the trace concentrations cited in the lawsuit would not be expected to produce acute or chronic toxicity at standard feeding rates. Glyphosate toxicity in dogs requires acute high-dose exposure (typically from accidental ingestion of concentrated herbicide product) rather than the parts-per-billion residue levels found in commercial pet food.
What to do if you bought affected product
The 2018 Nutrish lawsuit is closed and no FDA recall is in effect. Pet owners currently feeding Rachael Ray Nutrish do not need to discontinue feeding based on the dismissed litigation. If you have concerns about heavy metal or glyphosate exposure from any commercial pet food, the structural reality is that trace levels of both are present in essentially all U.S. agricultural-source food products (human and pet) due to natural soil/water content and widespread glyphosate herbicide use. Consumers seeking lower trace-contaminant exposure should look for brands publishing third-party heavy metal and glyphosate-residue assay results; few pet food brands currently do this routinely. For dogs with confirmed clinical illness, the standard veterinary approach is diet trial and serum biochemistry evaluation regardless of brand.
How this affects KibbleIQ’s grade
Rachael Ray Nutrish is in the KibbleIQ scored database; we score Nutrish on its current ingredient list per our published methodology. The 2018-2020 heavy metals litigation does not affect Nutrish’s current ingredient-list scoring because: (1) no FDA recall or adulteration finding was made; (2) the cited glyphosate and heavy metal concentrations were below FDA limits and NRC maximum tolerable levels per the court’s findings; (3) the lawsuit was dismissed twice via summary judgment. KibbleIQ’s methodology evaluates Nutrish on rubric-defined factors (ingredient quality, AAFCO substantiation, named-meat sourcing, filler-stack patterns) per our published methodology. Recall-history scoring under methodology v2 will not include dismissed civil litigation; the relevant signal is FDA-confirmed adulteration findings or manufacturer-initiated voluntary recalls. For now, our recommendation: read both our current Rachael Ray Nutrish review AND this page when evaluating the brand.