What was recalled
This page documents a lawsuit-only event, not an FDA recall. In late July 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed in California federal court against Solid Gold Pet alleging "fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation" related to the presence of heavy metals and BPA in the brand’s cat foods. The complaint cited third-party testing that claimed to find arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead in Solid Gold cat foods, plus bisphenol A (BPA) in some products. Plaintiffs alleged Solid Gold’s premium-positioning marketing was misleading given the presence of these substances.
The 2018 Solid Gold lawsuit followed the same template as parallel 2018 class-action filings against other premium pet food brands — most notably the Champion Petfoods (Acana/Orijen) lawsuit filed March 1, 2018 (covered in our Champion 2018 controversy page) and a parallel Rachael Ray Nutrish lawsuit. The shared legal theory was that premium-positioning pet food brands failed to disclose heavy-metal and BPA presence that the plaintiffs argued contradicted the brands’ marketing. Coverage at Truth About Pet Food documents the 2018 filing; Petful’s coverage contextualizes the case within the 2018 wave of similar litigation. No FDA recall was issued; the FDA did not make an adulteration or misbranding finding.
Why it was recalled
This page documents the civil-litigation context of a class-action lawsuit, not an FDA recall. The plaintiff allegations were that Solid Gold’s heavy metal and BPA concentrations contradicted the brand’s premium-positioning marketing. Industry analysis of the third-party test results cited in the complaints concluded that the heavy metal levels were below NRC maximum tolerable limits for canine and feline diets — the same standard applied in the parallel Champion (Acana/Orijen) and Nutrish litigation. The same structural reality applies to all U.S. agricultural-source food products (human and pet): trace heavy metal concentrations are present in essentially all food due to natural soil and water content; the relevant question is whether concentrations exceed established action levels (FDA action level, NRC maximum tolerable level).
The 2018 Solid Gold case is the second documented FDA-recall-history-clean event for Solid Gold (the brand’s first recall was the 2012 Salmonella event affecting two dry dog food recipes, which was a sub-event of the larger Diamond Pet Foods 2012 Gaston, SC plant multi-brand Salmonella recall covered in our 2012 Salmonella page). The 2018 lawsuit is a distinct civil event from the 2012 FDA recall; the company has not had a recall directly attributable to Solid Gold’s own manufacturing operations.
Health risks for your pet
No consumer pet illnesses were reported in connection with the 2018 Solid Gold heavy metals litigation. The plaintiff complaint did not document specific pet illness cases tied to heavy metal exposure from Solid Gold consumption; the complaint focused on disclosure and labeling theories rather than consumer-illness theories. Heavy metal toxicity in dogs and cats from food sources is a real clinical phenomenon at sufficient exposure levels, but the Solid Gold heavy metal levels cited in the lawsuit were below the NRC maximum tolerable level for canine and feline diets, so the trace concentrations would not be expected to produce acute or chronic toxicity at standard feeding rates. BPA exposure from pet food packaging is a separate question that applies to most canned and pouched pet food across the industry; FDA continues to monitor BPA in food packaging and has not established a pet food BPA action level distinct from the human food framework.
What to do if you bought affected product
No FDA recall is in effect for Solid Gold pet food. Pet owners currently feeding Solid Gold do not need to discontinue feeding based on the 2018 lawsuit. If you have concerns about heavy metal exposure from any commercial pet food, the structural reality is that trace heavy metal concentrations are present in essentially all U.S. agricultural-source food products; the relevant question is whether concentrations exceed established action levels. Consumers seeking lower trace-metal exposure should look for brands publishing third-party heavy metal assay results; few pet food brands currently do this routinely. BPA exposure can be reduced by choosing fresh-cooked or freeze-dried formats over canned or pouched formats, though the cost trade-off is substantial.
How this affects KibbleIQ’s grade
Solid Gold (dog formulas) is in the KibbleIQ scored database; we score Solid Gold on its current ingredient list per our published methodology. The 2018 lawsuit does not affect Solid Gold’s current ingredient-list scoring because: (1) no FDA recall or adulteration finding was made; (2) the cited heavy metal concentrations appeared to be below NRC maximum tolerable levels; (3) the case is a civil disclosure-theory action that has not produced an adverse final ruling against the company at the time of writing. KibbleIQ’s methodology evaluates Solid Gold on rubric-defined factors per our published methodology. Recall-history scoring under methodology v2 will not include civil litigation without FDA adulteration findings; the relevant signal for the methodology is FDA-confirmed adulteration findings or manufacturer-initiated voluntary recalls. Solid Gold’s recall history is dominated by the 2012 Salmonella event (a sub-event of the Diamond Pet Foods Gaston, SC multi-brand event), with no Solid-Gold-specific manufacturing recalls. For now, our recommendation: read both our current Solid Gold review AND this page when evaluating the brand.