Pet Fooled. Great documentary for all pet owners

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Britster

I watched it. It was definitely biased.

I think it's an okay watch for an average pet owner who just walks into a grocery store and picks out a pretty bag of food. Most people literally have never even looked at the back of the bag or an ingredient list or find out how/where their dogs food is made. I know sooo many people who truly believe they are feeding their dog the best by feeding Beneful because "it's colorful and looks like it has real veggies in it!"

Sooo for that, I think it's good to at least get people *thinking*. But I really hated the pushy raw feeding in it. I wish they would've spoken of homecooking more, to be honest, because I sort of feel like this is likely the healthiest option for our pets if done correctly. Also, they did not touch on properly balancing raw. Raw can be fantastic for some dogs but there is a balancing act to it and it has to be done properly or you could have a very sick dog. I feel like they kind of... left that out.

It wasn't a bad doc but I think it should have been more well rounded.

I haven't seen it but I agree with what your saying. I wish Callie would have ate it when I tried home cooking. I love it as far as knowing what they are eating. Joey is really weird he will ONLY eat kibble doesn't like other meats or anything. He will eat a few bites of veggies and fruits but only really likes dry food. I have never heard of a dog like that. That's one of the things my instructor and the intergrative vet brought up as some of the cons (balancing). My cousins gf thinks she can just throw a raw chicken down and that's it. There is a lot that goes into feeding things other then balanced kibble. I hate the pushing of raw as the ''only'' good food.

[Wylie's Mom]

I don't think raw is the "only" good food out there, so I don't have that take/opinion. There are so many dogs who do wonderfully on what they're eating. I will say, categorically, that I do not like that kibble is a food that is processed within an inch of its life. I don't think that's as healthy as something more fresh - there is no way around that for me. Same for humans - fresh is way better than something crunchy in bag. Kibble is as processed a food as one can get - however, you can't beat the convenience, the balance of it, the accessibility etcetera.

Taylor, it sounds like your cousin is feeding Prey Model raw - and they have a whole different slant on what "balancing" means. They don't "balance" the diet every day, per se....it's more like they balance it over a time period - which is what a canine would do naturally (balance over time). Hope that makes sense!

As far as salmonella, is everyone aware there is salmonella present in pretty much every bag of kibble out there...? I understand there is salmonella in raw AND in kibble, we've discussed that several times. But the way anti-raw folks over-blow the salmonella thing just over-blows my mind! I've been feeding raw 8.5 yrs now and I am not careful or persnickety about germs. Never had a single, solitary issue with this rampant salmonella problem .

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Britster

I watched it. It was definitely biased.

I think it's an okay watch for an average pet owner who just walks into a grocery store and picks out a pretty bag of food. Most people literally have never even looked at the back of the bag or an ingredient list or find out how/where their dogs food is made. I know sooo many people who truly believe they are feeding their dog the best by feeding Beneful because "it's colorful and looks like it has real veggies in it!"

Sooo for that, I think it's good to at least get people *thinking*. But I really hated the pushy raw feeding in it. I wish they would've spoken of homecooking more, to be honest, because I sort of feel like this is likely the healthiest option for our pets if done correctly. Also, they did not touch on properly balancing raw. Raw can be fantastic for some dogs but there is a balancing act to it and it has to be done properly or you could have a very sick dog. I feel like they kind of... left that out.

It wasn't a bad doc but I think it should have been more well rounded.

Yay, so glad you watched it bc, I swear, my opinion matches right up w/ yours about 95% of the time!

No one wants raw pushed upon them, it's such a turn off...so that's too bad it felt a bit slanted like that.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I don't think raw is the "only" good food out there, so I don't have that take/opinion. There are so many dogs who do wonderfully on what they're eating. I will say, categorically, that I do not like that kibble is a food that is processed within an inch of its life. I don't think that's as healthy as something more fresh - there is no way around that for me. Same for humans - fresh is way better than something crunchy in bag. Kibble is as processed a food as one can get - however, you can't beat the convenience, the balance of it, the accessibility etcetera.

Taylor, it sounds like your cousin is feeding Prey Model raw - and they have a whole different slant on what "balancing" means. They don't "balance" the diet every day, per se....it's more like they balance it over a time period - which is what a canine would do naturally (balance over time). Hope that makes sense!

As far as salmonella, is everyone aware there is salmonella present in pretty much every bag of kibble out there...? I understand there is salmonella in raw AND in kibble, we've discussed that several times. But the way anti-raw folks over-blow the salmonella thing just over-blows my mind! I've been feeding raw 8.5 yrs now and I am not careful or persnickety about germs. Never had a single, solitary issue with this rampant salmonella problem .

No my cousin isn't feeding that way they put no research in it what so ever. They also are not clean people and have a toddler and infant. Salmonella is not the only concern. I tried everything with Callie, due to her IBD she pretty much has to be on the prescription kibble. I just don't like how people not necessarily you say raw is the only way for your pet to thrive and everything else is crap food and makes people feel like crap. Raw is not an option for me but I have tried home cooking which I think is awesome but Callie never took to it and the meats used for allergies like rabbit and duck are hard to get, expensive and smell really bad. Like I said with Joey his favorite thing is dry food, I have tried different meats and stuff with Joey like a little snack occasionally and he hates it which is weird but just him. People don't thrive on the same diets so why would we think dogs do.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

As far as salmonella, is everyone aware there is salmonella present in pretty much every bag of kibble out there...? I understand there is salmonella in raw AND in kibble, we've discussed that several times. But the way anti-raw folks over-blow the salmonella thing just over-blows my mind! I've been feeding raw 8.5 yrs now and I am not careful or persnickety about germs. Never had a single, solitary issue with this rampant salmonella problem .

This has been studied extensively, and I provided a link above to the article "Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and Toxigenic Escherichia coli in Various Pet Foods," but here it is again: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152787/ . In case the article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part:

"Six U.S. Food and Drug Administration FERN MCAP laboratories analyzed approximately 1056 samples over 2 years. Laboratories tested for Salmonella, Listeria, Escherichia coli O157:H7 enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and Shiga toxin–producing strains of E. coli (STEC). Dry and semimoist dog and cat foods purchased from local stores were tested during Phase 1. Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2. Of the 480 dry and semimoist samples, only 2 tested positive: 1 for Salmonella and 1 for Listeria greyii. However, of the 576 samples analyzed during Phase 2, 66 samples were positive for Listeria (32 of those were Listeria monocytogenes) and 15 samples positive for Salmonella. These pathogens were isolated from raw foods and jerky-type treats, not the exotic animal dry feeds. This study showed that raw pet foods may harbor food safety pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. Consumers should handle these products carefully, being mindful of the potential risks to human and animal health."

So yes, 3 out of 480 dry and semimoist dog foods (0.625%) tested positive for Salmonella or Listeria. (Note: This is NOT "pretty much every bag of kibble.") However, out of 576 samples of raw foods, 81 (14.0625%) tested positive for Salmonella or Listeria. In other words, raw foods are 22.5 times as likely to have harmful bacteria in them compared to dry or semimoist foods. The study concludes: "This study showed that raw pet foods may harbor food safety pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. Consumers should handle these products carefully, being mindful of the potential risks to human and animal health." This is NOT something trivial.

Unfortunately, this study did not measure the amount of contamination present, it only detected the presence or absence of bacteria. Animal's immune systems can often tolerate a small amount of bacterial contamination, but the greater the contamination, the harder it is to fight off ill effects.

I agree with Taylor that properly cooked home made meals are safer than raw foods. Again, not to say that it can't be done, but I personally don't have the confidence to fight the odds.

[yorkiemini]

My pup and I are in and out of several hospitals due to my seeing patients there often. And, of course, the patients are delighted to see my pup, more so than to see me! However, I have noted that the a number of the hospitals are not allowing therapy dogs that are fed raw. This is due to the concerns that many of the patients are very ill and immune compromised and they feel they cannot risk any possible problems.

When I talk ed the the infection control folks they could not outnthere hands on any very solid research that would tip the scale in a significant way, but continue to fall back on the risk/benefit data they have.

I personally have not used raw diet. We travel so much and refrigeration etc. just is not realistic for use.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I don't think raw is the "only" good food out there, so I don't have that take/opinion. There are so many dogs who do wonderfully on what they're eating. I will say, categorically, that I do not like that kibble is a food that is processed within an inch of its life. I don't think that's as healthy as something more fresh - there is no way around that for me. Same for humans - fresh is way better than something crunchy in bag. Kibble is as processed a food as one can get - however, you can't beat the convenience, the balance of it, the accessibility etcetera.

Taylor, it sounds like your cousin is feeding Prey Model raw - and they have a whole different slant on what "balancing" means. They don't "balance" the diet every day, per se....it's more like they balance it over a time period - which is what a canine would do naturally (balance over time). Hope that makes sense!

As far as salmonella, is everyone aware there is salmonella present in pretty much every bag of kibble out there...? I understand there is salmonella in raw AND in kibble, we've discussed that several times. But the way anti-raw folks over-blow the salmonella thing just over-blows my mind! I've been feeding raw 8.5 yrs now and I am not careful or persnickety about germs. Never had a single, solitary issue with this rampant salmonella problem .

I agree that kibble is obviously the most processed food there is. It does make me laugh how marketing through the years has made people think your dogs can ONLY eat kibble... how do we think dogs survived prior to kibble existing? THAT part of the doc was very interesting -- a bit of the history of dog food and why it even became kibble in a dry form. Bottom line is... pet food (on ALL fronts) is a business. Plain and simple.

I don't think there is anything wrong with learning and improving through the years -- I also find it funny that even BENEFUL now has a "grain free" food. So obviously these companies are catching on to what the consumers are wanting and they are having to make changes. Doesn't necessarily make it better but if there can be some improvements for the average joe dog owner, I'll take it. I'm not going to fault a person for feeding their dog what they can afford. I'd rather them be fed Beneful than out on the streets or not eating at all.

I also don't think kibble is the 'death nuggets killing dogs' either. Dogs are super adaptable creatures (fortunately for us) and can basically survive on anything if NEED be and have evolved eating this way. But I'm super glad that we live in a day and age where we can even have this discussion and be privileged enough to provide our dogs with not only the bare minimum but the "best" (or what we as owners feel is the best).

I do like the idea of the pre-packaged raw better than PMR (but maybe that's just me) because I like how it's just easier and properly balanced already for the average person. But the average person likely isn't going to pay the high prices.

Salmonella is very real, yes, but that's the least of my concerns with raw food. The amount of containment we as humans come in contact with on a daily basis alone... shopping cart handles apparently carry 115x more bacteria than a toilet seat. Remote controls, phones, etc all have a certain amount of fecal matter and everything else on them. We come in contact with these germs every day.

My main issue with raw is just the balancing. AND also... I've seen sooo many posts online of people saying their dog is having diarrhea, or vomiting, or some blood in stool, and people just pass it off as 'oh they're detoxing'. I can't stand when people are so desperate to feed their dogs a food that THEY feel is the best when their dog is clearly not doing their best! This is probably my biggest issue with PMR raw feeders.

Anywho. Off my soap box.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I agree with Taylor that properly cooked home made meals are safer than raw foods. Again, not to say that it can't be done, but I personally don't have the confidence to fight the odds.

I've wanted to take the plunge to feed Jackson homemade food for a while and I'm just too lazy. But maybe that should be my goal this year -- to start, lol.

In the mean time, he does great on Acana kibble and I always give him some wet food, usually Weruva and I feel like I'm giving him a good variety so he's not just eating dry food day in and day out. I like the added moisture content of wet food, it mimics more along the lines of a homecooked or raw diet (in a way) and he enjoys it more. So I like feeding him and seeing him happier.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Britster

I've wanted to take the plunge to feed Jackson homemade food for a while and I'm just too lazy. But maybe that should be my goal this year -- to start, lol.

In the mean time, he does great on Acana kibble and I always give him some wet food, usually Weruva and I feel like I'm giving him a good variety so he's not just eating dry food day in and day out. I like the added moisture content of wet food, it mimics more along the lines of a homecooked or raw diet (in a way) and he enjoys it more. So I like feeding him and seeing him happier.

It's really not that hard. I really don't cook and did it all my self. She just didn't take to it. I actually liked doing it.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Britster

I've wanted to take the plunge to feed Jackson homemade food for a while and I'm just too lazy. But maybe that should be my goal this year -- to start, lol.

In the mean time, he does great on Acana kibble and I always give him some wet food, usually Weruva and I feel like I'm giving him a good variety so he's not just eating dry food day in and day out. I like the added moisture content of wet food, it mimics more along the lines of a homecooked or raw diet (in a way) and he enjoys it more. So I like feeding him and seeing him happier.

Brit - have you ever thought about trying "U-Stew" or similar...? Where they provide the packet of stuff (supplements, etc) and all you add is your cooked meat of choice? That would make it super easy and you wouldn't have to feel like you need to balance it all yourself. I use their "Better in the Raw" version - where I just add raw meat.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by pstinard

This has been studied extensively, and I provided a link above to the article "Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and Toxigenic Escherichia coli in Various Pet Foods," but here it is again: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152787/ . In case the article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part:

"Six U.S. Food and Drug Administration FERN MCAP laboratories analyzed approximately 1056 samples over 2 years. Laboratories tested for Salmonella, Listeria, Escherichia coli O157:H7 enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and Shiga toxin–producing strains of E. coli (STEC). Dry and semimoist dog and cat foods purchased from local stores were tested during Phase 1. Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2. Of the 480 dry and semimoist samples, only 2 tested positive: 1 for Salmonella and 1 for Listeria greyii. However, of the 576 samples analyzed during Phase 2, 66 samples were positive for Listeria (32 of those were Listeria monocytogenes) and 15 samples positive for Salmonella. These pathogens were isolated from raw foods and jerky-type treats, not the exotic animal dry feeds. This study showed that raw pet foods may harbor food safety pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. Consumers should handle these products carefully, being mindful of the potential risks to human and animal health."

So yes, 3 out of 480 dry and semimoist dog foods (0.625%) tested positive for Salmonella or Listeria. (Note: This is NOT "pretty much every bag of kibble.") However, out of 576 samples of raw foods, 81 (14.0625%) tested positive for Salmonella or Listeria. In other words, raw foods are 22.5 times as likely to have harmful bacteria in them compared to dry or semimoist foods. The study concludes: "This study showed that raw pet foods may harbor food safety pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. Consumers should handle these products carefully, being mindful of the potential risks to human and animal health." This is NOT something trivial.

Unfortunately, this study did not measure the amount of contamination present, it only detected the presence or absence of bacteria. Animal's immune systems can often tolerate a small amount of bacterial contamination, but the greater the contamination, the harder it is to fight off ill effects.

I agree with Taylor that properly cooked home made meals are safer than raw foods. Again, not to say that it can't be done, but I personally don't have the confidence to fight the odds.

First, Phil - I always love that you seek out data - you're so valuable to all the discussions that occur here ! But....I think I can only take this experiment with a grain of salt - PLEASE note what was tested here in "Phase 2": "Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2" ---- I mean...??!

How on earth do we know or not know whether 99% of the bacteria wasn't all found in these "jerky treats". Using this experiment as evidence against proper feeding of properly bought and prepared raw PET FOOD (not jerky treats, NOT exotic feed) seems grossly unfair and inaccurate. Ever heard what is found on Bully Sticks (hello clostridium etc!)...? Treats are some of the most germ-infested items on the pet market. Totally unfair to put raw food (which is treated TOTALLY different in manufacturing!) and jerky treats in the same silo!

If I have some time, I will try to locate the info regarding salmonella in kibble bags...it's on YT somewhere, which can be tough to locate. It used to say "wash hands, salmonella warning etc" on every kibble bag, btw...so it's a very real thing - not something made up.

Bottom line is (and to Brit's good point) there are germs / bugs everywhere; our paper money bills are infested with e.coli at all times. My firsthand experience for the last *8 years* of raw feeding is that the grim warnings are grossly overwrought and perhaps are put out there for other reasons. The FDA and USDA are not groups I trust - as their "studies" are often designed to achieve a message they want to craft, wrapped in statistics that aren't exactly clean, but still achieve their goal (the real goal often being cloaked in some other end-point, which is hugely frustrating!).

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

First, Phil - I always love that you seek out data - you're so valuable to all the discussions that occur here ! But....I think I can only take this experiment with a grain of salt - PLEASE note what was tested here in "Phase 2": "Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2" ---- I mean...??!

How on earth do we know or not know whether 99% of the bacteria wasn't all found in these "jerky treats". Using this experiment as evidence against proper feeding of properly bought and prepared raw PET FOOD (not jerky treats, NOT exotic feed) seems grossly unfair and inaccurate. Ever heard what is found on Bully Sticks (hello clostridium etc!)...? Treats are some of the most germ-infested items on the pet market. Totally unfair to put raw food (which is treated TOTALLY different in manufacturing!) and jerky treats in the same silo!

If I have some time, I will try to locate the info regarding salmonella in kibble bags...it's on YT somewhere, which can be tough to locate. It used to say "wash hands, salmonella warning etc" on every kibble bag, btw...so it's a very real thing - not something made up.

Bottom line is (and to Brit's good point) there are germs / bugs everywhere; our paper money bills are infested with e.coli at all times. My firsthand experience for the last *8 years* of raw feeding is that the grim warnings are grossly overwrought and perhaps are put out there for other reasons. The FDA and USDA are not groups I trust - as their "studies" are often designed to achieve a message they want to craft, wrapped in statistics that aren't exactly clean, but still achieve their goal (the real goal often being cloaked in some other end-point, which is hugely frustrating!).

Good point about not knowing which raw foods had the bacteria--whether it was the cat and dog foods or the exotic pet foods or jerky treats. I'll recheck the article and see if they say which foods tested positive--it might be in a table somewhere.

Thanks for not being offended by my persistence. And I always love examining a good scientific article, so if you can find one, I'll take a look and let you know what I think.

About the FDA and USDA, they're better than the way things used to be (no testing or regulations whatsoever--think of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" BRIA 24 1 b Upton Sinclairs The Jungle: Muckraking the Meat-Packing Industry - Constitutional Rights Foundation), but there is always room for improvement .

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

First, Phil - I always love that you seek out data - you're so valuable to all the discussions that occur here ! But....I think I can only take this experiment with a grain of salt - PLEASE note what was tested here in "Phase 2": "Raw dog and cat foods, exotic animal feed, and jerky-type treats purchased through the Internet were tested in Phase 2" ---- I mean...??!

How on earth do we know or not know whether 99% of the bacteria wasn't all found in these "jerky treats". Using this experiment as evidence against proper feeding of properly bought and prepared raw PET FOOD (not jerky treats, NOT exotic feed) seems grossly unfair and inaccurate. Ever heard what is found on Bully Sticks (hello clostridium etc!)...? Treats are some of the most germ-infested items on the pet market. Totally unfair to put raw food (which is treated TOTALLY different in manufacturing!) and jerky treats in the same silo!

If I have some time, I will try to locate the info regarding salmonella in kibble bags...it's on YT somewhere, which can be tough to locate. It used to say "wash hands, salmonella warning etc" on every kibble bag, btw...so it's a very real thing - not something made up.

Bottom line is (and to Brit's good point) there are germs / bugs everywhere; our paper money bills are infested with e.coli at all times. My firsthand experience for the last *8 years* of raw feeding is that the grim warnings are grossly overwrought and perhaps are put out there for other reasons. The FDA and USDA are not groups I trust - as their "studies" are often designed to achieve a message they want to craft, wrapped in statistics that aren't exactly clean, but still achieve their goal (the real goal often being cloaked in some other end-point, which is hugely frustrating!).

Update: I was able to find a breakdown of which foods in Phase 2 tested positive for bacteria (see Table 1 attached to this post). I'm as surprised as you will be to see that it was the raw foods and NOT the jerky treats or dry exotic pet foods! That might not be a huge problem to dogs that have a healthy immune system--I don't know. I'll try to look into this myself, but if you find any articles about this in the meantime, let me know.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by yorkiemini

My pup and I are in and out of several hospitals due to my seeing patients there often. And, of course, the patients are delighted to see my pup, more so than to see me! However, I have noted that the a number of the hospitals are not allowing therapy dogs that are fed raw. This is due to the concerns that many of the patients are very ill and immune compromised and they feel they cannot risk any possible problems.

When I talk ed the the infection control folks they could not outnthere hands on any very solid research that would tip the scale in a significant way, but continue to fall back on the risk/benefit data they have.

I personally have not used raw diet. We travel so much and refrigeration etc. just is not realistic for use.

The article I cited has a section that relates to the reason why animals fed raw food diets *might* be a danger to people with compromised immune systems. Evidently, there is limited data to suggest that dogs fed raw diets are more likely to shed Salmonella in their stool than dogs fed commercial diets. I'll quote the whole section of the article below, and put the relevant section in bold type. (This article also notes that there used to be problems with Salmonella contamination of dry foods, but the dry food industry is improving over time.)

"This study showed that raw pet foods and jerky-type treats may harbor food safety pathogens, such as L. monocytogenes, Salmonella, and non-O157 STECs, and consumers should take appropriate precautions when handling these products. Numerous cases of human salmonellosis have been linked to contaminated dry dog and cat foods. From 2006 to 2008, an outbreak of Salmonella Schwarzengrund, which included 79 illnesses over 21 states, resulted in the recall of 105 brands of dry pet food and the permanent closure of the manufacturing plant (Behravesh et al., 2010). In 2012, there was an outbreak of human Salmonella enterica serotype Infantis infections related to exposure to dry dog food (CDC, 2012; Imanishi et al., 2014). With the dog and cat population in the United States estimated at 65 million and 78 million animals, respectively, according to the 2002 American Pet Product Manufacturers Association National Pet Survey (Finley et al., 2006), a significant human population is exposed to pet food and treats. Surveys, between 2002 and 2009, for the presence of Salmonella in animal feeds, feed ingredients, pet foods, treats, and supplements showed that Salmonella prevalence decreased (especially in feed ingredients and pet foods and treats); however, outbreaks continue (Li et al., 2012). Our study supports the conclusion that Salmonella prevalence in dry feeds has decreased, since we found only one Salmonella positive out of 480 dry and semimoist cat and dog food samples tested. Pet owners still need to take appropriate hygiene precautions, such as thorough hand washing, after handling pet food and treats.


In recent years, various groups have advocated feeding raw food diets to companion animals. This practice poses health risks to both animals and owners. A limited study, completed in Canada, showed that dogs fed a BARF (bones and raw food) diet were more likely to shed Salmonella in their stool than dogs fed commercial diets (Joffe and Schlesinger, 2002). There is an increasing trend of feeding raw meat diets in the United States, and these raw diets pose a risk to pet owners due to an increased risk of bacterial contamination from handling these products (Freeman and Michel, 2001). The results from our investigation show that these raw pet food products can contain pathogenic bacteria. In 2011, a study in California evaluated raw horsemeat diets in zoo settings and screened for Salmonella and E. coli, but not Listeria (Singleton et al., 2012). This study found one sample positive for Salmonella out of 54 samples that were screened using a sandwich ELISA test. The data show fewer positives than previous studies from zoos, which reported up to 60% positive findings for raw diets (Richter and al-Sheddy, 1990; Singleton et al., 2012). The Singleton study tested a small number of samples (54) and did not use standard microbial culture methods, which may have resulted in underreporting of positives from the raw meat diet. Our study used standard culture methods, tested more samples, and screened for a wider range of bacteria, including Listeria. We found that the raw pet food products could be contaminated with either Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, or both pathogens.


Ours is the first report of Listeria monocytogenes contamination of commercial pet foods. There is one case report of an abortion in a dog consuming a raw food diet, although the source of the infection was not confirmed (LeJeune and Hancock, 2001). L. monocytogenes was isolated from dog and cat fecal samples in a study that looked at the occurrence of the pathogen in domestic and companion animals (Weber et al., 1995). Thus, dogs and cats harbor, and sometimes can be adversely affected by, this pathogen. Due to the serious health consequences of L. monocytogenes infections, especially in pregnant women (Mylonakis et al., 2002; Jackson et al., 2010), it is important for veterinarians, public health experts, and consumers to be made aware of the potential presence of L. monocytogenes in raw pet foods. Owners who decide to feed these products should take strict precautions to avoid infection by thoroughly washing hands and disinfecting all surfaces and objects that come in contact with raw pet foods. Public health experts also need to consider the potential for exposure from raw pet foods when trying to determine the source of an infection. Finally, producers of these products should take steps to reduce the potential for contamination with food safety pathogens."

[pstinard]

More details on the risk of humans being infected by dogs that are fed raw diets. Here is a link to the article that was cited in the article I discussed above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/ . They fed the dogs fresh raw chicken, and not a commercial raw diet. Although the article states that these results are preliminary, this is probably the basis for nursing homes discouraging pets that have been raw fed. I'm not sure whether or not the article is behind a paywall for most people, so I'll quote parts of the article below:

Abstract

This preliminary study assessed the presence of Salmonella spp. in a bones and raw food (BARF) diet and in the stools of dogs consuming it. Salmonella was isolated from 80% of the BARF diet samples (P < 0.001) and from 30% of the stool samples from dogs fed the diet (P = 0.105). Dogs fed raw chicken may therefore be a source of environmental contamination.


Introduction

A current trend among dog owners is the feeding of “natural” diets. Proponents argue that the processing methods used to produce commercial pet foods destroy essential nutrients and enzymes. They believe, therefore, that commercial pet foods do not meet the nutritional needs of dogs and may be a source of chronic health problems. One natural diet, proposed by Billinghurst (1), is commonly referred to as the BARF (bones and raw food) diet. It consists of pieces of whole raw chicken together with vegetables. Claims made for this diet by its champions include improved immune function and overall health, increased energy, improved coat and skin condition, and decreased body odor for the dogs that are on it (1). No publications, other than anecdotal testimonials, support or refute these claims. In one small-scale study, the nutritional adequacy of several “natural” diets was examined: significant nutritional imbalances existed (2).

Feeding raw chicken to dogs is a concern, given the many bacterial pathogens (especially Salmonella spp.) that are commonly present in raw poultry (3). Billinghurst (1) suggested that these pathogens are rendered harmless by the uniquely adapted canine intestinal tract. No reports documenting clinical salmonellosis in dogs fed a BARF diet have been published, though Salmonella spp. are well-described pathogens in dogs (4,5).

Since dogs are a potential source for several zoonotic pathogens, feeding raw meats to dogs is also a public health concern (5). Given the current popularity of the BARF diet, concern about environmental contamination with Salmonella spp. from the stools of dogs fed this diet is obvious. There are no published studies examining that aspect of this nutritional trend. The present, preliminary study was conducted to determine if dogs fed a BARF diet shed Salmonella spp. in their stools.


Results

The culture results from the food and stool samples are summarized in Table 1. All food and stool samples from the controls were negative for Salmonella spp. Eighty percent of the BARF-diet samples were positive for Salmonella spp.: S. Braenderup and S. Schwarzengrund were each cultured from 3 samples, and S. Hadar was cultured from 2 samples. Thirty percent of the dogs fed a BARF diet had positive stool cultures for Salmonella spp.: 2 samples yielded S. Schwarzengrund, and 1 was positive for S. Braenderup. One BARF-fed subject had S. Schwarzengrund cultured from both its food and its stool sample. One subject that had S. Schwarzengrund cultured from its food sample had S. Braenderup identified in its stool sample. Another dog with a negative food sample was shedding S. Schwarzengrund in its stool.


From the results of this limited study, a BARF diet is significantly more likely than a commercial diet to contain Salmonella spp. (P < 0.001), and BARF-fed dogs are more likely than commercially fed dogs to shed Salmonella spp. in their stools (P = 0.105).



Discussion

This preliminary study found that 30% of stool samples from dogs fed homemade BARF diets contained various Salmonella serovars, whereas none of the samples from dogs fed commercial dry diets contained Salmonella spp. Although these results are suggestive, they are not statistically significant owing to the small number of dogs studied. Larger numbers of dogs or multiple stool samples from each dog might have allowed the results to reach statistical significance. Unfortunately, the limited funding to this private clinic for this study did not allow for the inclusion of more study animals or multiple cultures from individual subjects. Though interesting, the fact that 80% of BARF food samples cultured positive for Salmonella spp. is not surprising, given the well-documented prevalence of Salmonella spp. in raw chicken (3). The fact that none of the commercial food samples cultured positive for Salmonella spp. was not unexpected.


Of the 3 positive stool samples, 1 was from a dog whose food contained the same Salmonella serovar, 1 was from a dog whose food contained a different serovar, and the 3rd was from a dog whose food tested negative. The stool cultures may have reflected previous dietary contamination. Given the high number of positive food cultures, one could speculate that had multiple stool samples from dogs fed a BARF diet been assessed, more than 30% of them would have yielded Salmonella spp.


The results of this preliminary study prove that some dogs fed a BARF diet shed Salmonella spp. in their stools. This fact should be a consideration for owners choosing to feed this diet and be of especial concern for those with young children, the aged, or other people who may have compromised immune systems. We hope that this study will serve as an impetus for further study, with more subjects and multiple stool samples from each subject, to fully elucidate the public health concerns of this popular feeding trend. Given the high percentage of BARF diets that were positive for Salmonella spp. on culture, strict hygiene must be implemented when handling this food. In addition, the food bowl, the feeding area, and the pet's mouth must be considered as potential sources of Salmonella.