My vet said that pets that have a serious allergic reaction to certain types of foods should generally not buy food from a pet store because even if a food has no chicken in it, it can still be contaminated by foods that are made in the same plant that do contain chicken. Which makes since because a lot of people with say peanut allergy's have to make sure not to get anything made in a plant with things that have peanuts.

I don't know if Daisy has an allergy or a "sensitivity" to chicken, or if there is even a difference. One day my husband and I went through the pet store and picked up just about every can we could find and checked the ingredients. Every can had the word "chicken" in it, whether it was chicken broth, flavoring, or whatever. We are just trying to avoid chicken. I am going to see how she does on the Hills Salmon and if there are no problems, I will stick with that as long as she eats it. Right now she seems to like it and she is not itching and her poops are not runny. We shall see though. I don't know what else I can do.

Callie has IBD which is caused by food allergies and ended up having to go on Royal Canin hypoallergenic small breed it's prescription but wow she is doing amazing now.

Yup, great point. :thumbup:

So glad she is doing SO well, that's just wonderful to hear. There are many, many dogs who absolutely need a specialized diet and whose lives are improved by them. Some prescription diets get a bad rap at times, and it's not usually warranted.

Thank you for the article - I think most of us know that mislabeling happens all too frequently in the food services industry for humans and pets, including restaurant menus! Scary stuff, especially for those with severe allergies to an included food they knew nothing about. I hear this kind of report too frequently, lately.

Hey, Ann, come on, girl - lighten up! What's wrong with 107Barney having her opinion? Isn't that the very definition of discussion - an exchange of opinions, even those we don't like? A moderator telling a member to "KNOCK THIS OFF" in all capitols and step out of a discussion isn't exactly conducive or encouraging to anyone else adding their dissenting or questioning opinions on any of your threads, is it? Is that the message you wanted to send to us sitting out here with nuttin' to do while drinking our coffee but scan YT?

Scary article.
 

Wow, that is not good! When I read a food label I usually assume that the ingredient list is true. If that is not the case, why even have labels or read them??? If the word chicken appears as flavor, does that mean there is or is not some chicken there?? It could mean a chicken concentrate is used for flavor or a chemical that tastes like chicken! Important if allergies are involved.
Dog food issues drive me nuts!!! What can we believe or trust?

I will just make a couple of comments Dr Becker does not actually post a link to the referenced research in many of her articles - but then again a number of DVM's and even some organizations don't as well. They refer to it but do not link it.


Mis-leading and or downright errors in processing and labelling I believe are a valid concern. But I guess I don't truly understand why more folks don't go with a vet nutritionist to develop a healthy home made meal. Gosh folks these wee guys only eat 1/2 c maybe at most a day. You can make and freeze a couple of wks supply even if you don't have a large freezer.


Once you get into the swing of it - it is really not too time consuming - and while not cheaper than a high quality kibble - you have much more control over your ingredients.

Possible explanation of the Hills results...
 

Hi, I apologize profusely in advance. I promised in another thread to take a break in posting on nutrition articles, but I think I can make a couple of comments without being too controversial. I was able to access the original article cited by the Becker article: http://www.actavetscand.com/content/...015-0097-z.pdf

I looked at their table of results specifically searching for DNA content of the Hills products that were mentioned. Here is what I found:

Hill's Prescription Diet R/D Feline Weight Loss Low Calorie Liver (Cat, Hill's Pet Nutrition). Ingredients: Pork Liver, Pork By-Products, Chicken, Chicken Liver Flavour. DNA analysis showed that the only DNA present was 100% from pork.

The critique of this result is that the only DNA present was from pork, and none from chicken, which is also on the label. My comments are that (1) The results posted in the paper are qualitative, not quantitative, so it's impossible to tell whether chicken DNA wasn't detected because there was no chicken in the cat food, or whether the chicken DNA wasn't detected because it was degraded during food processing, and (2) There was no DNA detected from species that were not on the label.

Hill's Science Plan Tender Chunks in Gravy--Chicken (Cat, Hill's Pet Nutrition). Ingredients: Meat and animal derivatives (35% chicken). DNA analysis showed 3% pork DNA and 97% chicken DNA.

Again, the article's critique is that there should have been a lower percentage of chicken, and a higher percentage of other meat sources, since the label says 35% chicken. Again, my comments are that (1) The results are not quantitative--there is no guarantee that any of the DNA of any of the animal species wasn't degraded by the cooking process, (2) There was no DNA from species not listed on the label, and (3) At least the food was labeled as being a chicken product and contains chicken, perhaps a lot of chicken.

This is a very interesting study, and I think that it makes valid points for those foods for which DNA was detected from species that are NOT on the label. That could indeed result in food allergies for unsuspecting customers, violate labeling regulations, and be problematic to people who don't want to feed particular meat sources due to religious practices. I just wanted to point out some methodological flaws in the study. Just because the study didn't find the DNA for a particular species doesn't mean that the species meat isn't in the food. And the proportions of the DNA that they detected could be off due to how the food is made (possible DNA degradation).

The authors of this article cite another study of dry dog foods where the proteins were analyzed for their animal source of origin. That's a much more valid approach, especially since it's generally the proteins that cause allergic reactions. I'm going to check that article out right now. Again my apologies--Becker's description of the research article is fundamentally correct. It's just some of the conclusions of the original article that may be a little off.

Wow...
 

Here is a link to another article on dog food protein source contamination that was cited by the article above: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...jpn.12045/full. BTW, I find this article more valid than the one cited above because they used microscopic analysis of bone fragments to determine the species present, as well as DNA analysis. AND their main issue is with foods containing protein sources not on the list of ingredients, not with foods that don't appear to contain protein sources that ARE on the list of ingredients.

Unfortunately, this article doesn't name the brands that were tested, but they found that 10 out 12 foods tested contain protein sources not listed on the label. Now THAT is problematic for dogs with allergies, because these were supposed to be limited ingredient foods:

Summary

Failure to respond to commercial limited antigen diets can occur in dogs kept on a dietary trial for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR). The aim of this study was to assess twelve canine dry limited antigen diets (eleven novel protein diets and one hydrolysed diet) for potential contamination by ingredients of animal origin not mentioned on the label. The validity of the two methods adopted for the detection of such food antigens was also evaluated. Each dietary product was analysed by microscopy analysis using the official method described in Commission Regulation EC 152/2009 with the aim of identifying bone fragments of different zoological classes (mammalian, avian and fish) and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the identification of DNA of animal origin. Discrepancies between the results obtained by PCR and/or microscopy analysis and the ingredients listed on pet food packages were found. Only in two pet foods did the results of both analyses match the ingredients listed on the label. In the remaining ten samples, microscopy detected bone fragments from one or two unpredicted zoological classes, revealing avian fragments in six of ten samples followed by those of fish in five of ten and mammalian fragments in four of ten. In two samples, microscopy analysis identified a contamination that would have otherwise passed unobserved if only PCR had been used. However, PCR confirmed the presence of all the zoological classes detected by microscopy and also identified the DNA of an additional unexpected zoological class in two samples. Dogs might fail to respond to commercial limited antigen diets because such diets are contaminated with potential allergens. Both PCR and microscopy analysis are required to guarantee the absence of undeclared animal sources in pet foods. Before ruling out AFR, a novel protein home-made diet should be considered if the dog is unresponsive to a commercial regimen.

Analysis
 

For the pet owner layman I believe that the qualitative facts given in the article are useful and alarming. Making all the excuses as to why the data should be rejected seems unfair too me. Is it not rather negative to go to all these lengths to disparage the results? If the DNA were degraded during processing for chicken, why not for pork? I would think that DNA would degrade similarly in most animal meat processing. Perhaps ANYTHING written by this author is by definition suspect and has to be disproven? I find that hard to do, if that is your opinion and advice.

RE post #24
 

I find this section very 'scientific and technical' and I for one find it hard to understand.

Thanks, Phil, for your insight and for looking into the other study. Can I ask you to explain the difference in quantitative vs. qualitative in this context?

I've heard about DNA degradation in food processing and during storage, exposure, testing procedures, etc., and here's a silly question but wouldn't the scientists or testers performing the study in question take DNA degradation into consideration before positing on their conclusions lest they be considered, well, sloppy, in drawing those conclusions?

I actually stated that the facts of the article ARE useful and alarming. The only flaws in the article are for when they say a protein source is NOT present in the food. I agree with the article that when they find a protein that is not supposed to be there. And that's a problem for dogs with allergies. I am NOT making excuses for rejecting all of the data, I'm just saying that the comments about Hill's are flawed.

Why might DNA be degraded for one ingredient and not for another? (1) I didn't say it WAS, I said it was a possibility. (2) It could easily happen if the different protein sources are processed in different ways. For instance, a higher cooking temperature, or the age of the meat that is used. Not all of the meat sources were necessarily cooked on the same day or in the same manner, or slaughtered on the same day.

Personally, I'm tired of people attacking ME due to misunderstandings. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask me for a clarification, or don't comment, but DON'T attack me.

Interesting!!!

Gosh, what a colossal bummer for these needing ltd ingred food though...bc it does show us how vulnerable these foods might be. Makes you wonder if homecooked is always where someone should start if doing an elimination diet....

The results are qualitative rather than quantitative because they posted the amount of the different DNA's detected as a percentage of the total DNA detected. It would have been quantitative (and more accurate) if they had posted the number of micrograms of DNA (an actual amount of DNA) that they detected in the samples. The best way to do this study would have been to do control tests on freshly processed samples of raw meat, and then tested cooked samples to see if there was any degradation during food processing, and then compared the two results. I'm not saying that the results of this study were invalid, I'm just saying that they didn't do the proper controls, and they didn't cite any papers that HAVE done the proper controls. But the paper still has some good data where they detected DNA that wasn't supposed to be in the different foods. We just can't be certain of the amounts, and whether they are significant for animals with allergies.