Years Pet Food cleared itself after a recall and former customers remain unconvinced

Years Pet Food completed an internal investigation after a voluntary recall tied to sudden bilateral dry eye in dogs, tested 21,757 samples across 1,129 substances, found no contamination, and announced it will resume production next month with its earlier recipe. The consensus reading is that a brand cleared itself and can now return to the shelf. Former customers are making a different assessment: a company that investigated itself after a health scare has not answered the questions they are asking, regardless of what the investigation found.

The investigation Years ran and what it covered

Years initiated a voluntary recall on August 17, 2026, after reports of sudden bilateral dry eye in dogs fed its meals rose from 11 cases on July 22 to 57 cases by mid-August. The brand had recently introduced buckwheat into its formulation, so the investigation started there. Years tested buckwheat for tropane alkaloids, fagopyrin, mycotoxins, pesticides, sulphonamides, and heavy metals, and found no contamination. The company broadened the scope to 21,757 individual tests covering ingredients, samples held at the manufacturing facility, and products sent back by customers. The company reported finding no contamination, toxin, or safety issue in its food, ingredients, or packaging.

The British Association of Veterinary Ophthalmologists provided independent case data showing 155 instances of sudden bilateral dry eye in dogs that had eaten Years meals. The association also documented 96 instances in dogs never given Years products, with 55 of those occurring in Finland and Hungary, two markets where the brand does not operate. In both nations, dog foods with buckwheat appeared in the diets of affected animals at rates exceeding the ingredient's share of the overall market.

Years co-founders Darren Beale and Ivan Barashki said the findings provide reassurance about the safety of the fresh food, and the company will resume production in October with its buckwheat-free recipe. Years also committed to financing a separate study headed by David Williams, a veterinary ophthalmologist at Queen's Veterinary School Hospital in Cambridge, to investigate potential root causes of the condition. Affected owners have been asked to submit veterinary and care costs to loss adjuster Crawford & Co for potential legal and insurance liability review.

Why former customers remain unconvinced by the clearance

A Facebook group tracking Years instances has grown to more than 5,200 members, with hundreds of posts documenting severe eye discomfort, repeated vet visits, and treatment costs. Andy Young, one of the group's administrators, told Pet Business World that members remain entirely unhappy with the situation, and noted the report was issued in time for the company to restart subscriptions minus the buckwheat.

Former customers are not weighing whether Years found contamination. They are weighing whether the investigation answered what caused 155 instances of sudden bilateral dry eye in dogs that had eaten Years meals. Years conducted the investigation, reported the findings, cleared itself, and is now resuming production based on that self-clearance. The brand tested what it chose to test, reported what it found, and declared the matter resolved.

A buyer deciding whether to restock Years after a recall faces a question about what changed. The brand removed buckwheat, the ingredient present in affected animals' diets in multiple countries at rates exceeding its market share, but says the investigation found no evidence linking buckwheat to the condition. The recipe change suggests precaution; the investigation findings suggest the ingredient was not the issue. A buyer weighing the decision has to reconcile those two moves.

If your week runs on calls like this one, subscribe to PetRetailNews.

The playbook gap that determines whether a buyer restocks after a recall

The recall-to-reinstatement sequence matters when buyers evaluate whether to restock a brand after a health-linked recall. The testing scope was broad and the ingredient removal was precautionary. But the decision to restart production came from the same company that conducted the investigation, and buyers weighing the decision have to assess that structure.

The brand's pledge to finance a separate study does not change the calculus for stores deciding this month whether to restock. The study will investigate potential root causes of the condition, but Years is paying for it, and results will arrive after the company has already resumed production and distribution. A buyer weighing the decision today has an internal investigation, a recipe change, and a promise of future work.

Our read: the brand that clears itself asks buyers to trust a process they did not control

We think Years made a sequencing choice that will cost it distribution. The investigation may have been thorough. The testing may have covered every plausible contaminant. The recipe change may address the underlying issue. But the brand that investigates itself, clears itself, and restarts production is asking buyers to trust a process the buyer did not control and cannot verify.

The risk in our take: if the separate study Years is financing identifies a cause unrelated to the food, and if no further instances emerge after production resumes, the brand may rebuild trust over time and regain distribution. But buyers making the decision now are making it based on what the brand did, not what it might prove later.

The broader lesson for any brand facing a health-linked recall is that how you clear yourself determines whether buyers will restock. Internal findings may be thorough, but external validation gives buyers a decision they can defend to a customer asking why the brand is back on the shelf. A brand that conducts its own investigation and restarts production based on its own findings is choosing speed over the kind of clearance that makes restocking an easier call.

← Back to the Newsdesk