I don't want to take over this thread
but I think the topic is important and will post separately at some time. I have seen the site that you refer to and have not been impressed by the quality of argument. It is heavy on assertion and light on evidence. I do agree with you completely that there is a public health issue that relates to kibble-fed as well as raw-fed dogs, but it is wrong to imply that the risks are the same. Yes some kibble will be infected with unwanted bacteria from time to time, but if you look at studies, the incidence of salmonella is significantly higher in raw food than commercial kibble, therefore the risks will also be higher.
There is a Canadian Veterinary Journal paper that looks at this as well as the overall risks and benefits of raw feeding. "Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review" Daniel P. Schlesinger and Daniel J. Joffe
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003575/It refers to studies of bacterial infection in diets.
A recent study (15) analyzed 240 samples from 20 commercially prepared raw meat dog diets (beef, lamb, chicken, or turkey), 24 samples from 2 commercial dry dog foods, and 24 samples from 2 commercial canned foods...... Almost 6% of the raw food diets were positive for Salmonella, while none of the conventional diets were positive. Escherichia coli were isolated from all types of diets. It was found in almost 50% of the raw food diets but in only 8/24 (33%) dry and 2/24 (8%) canned diets.
In 1 small study of client-owned dogs, 80% of raw chicken diets were culture positive for Salmonella serovars, while none of the commercial dry foods were positive. Thirty percent of the stool samples of the raw chicken eaters were also positive; the commercial diet consumers’ stools were negative (16).
Another study looked at research dogs fed a frozen commercial raw food (17). The diet was tested for Salmonella prior to feeding and divided into contaminated and non-contaminated. The contaminated diet was fed to 16 dogs and the same non-contaminated diet was fed to 12 dogs. There were no clinical signs of disease in any of the dogs, but 7 of the dogs fed the contaminated diet shed Salmonella serovars in their stool for 1 to 7 d after consumption.
So yes, I do believe salmonella is an issue in dogs and it is a bigger issue in raw-fed dogs.