Mislabeled Dog Food: Feeding This to Your Pet Could Cause Allergic Reactions

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by pstinard

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.

Thank you for your patient, detailed answer to an amateur out here. Can't help but wonder why they didn't flesh-out their research by doing the comparative testing as you outlined for true controls or if they did do that, why not cite it so people in the know like you could have more confidence in the type of testing they did and methods for arriving at their conclusions? And why not state the amounts of detected foreign DNA so vets and patrons could try to determine if it might be sufficient to trigger an allergic reaction in a very sensitive dog? Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

Thank you for your patient, detailed answer to an amateur out here. Can't help but wonder why they didn't flesh-out their research by doing the comparative testing as you outlined for true controls or if they did do that, why not cite it so people in the know like you could have more confidence in the type of testing they did and methods for arriving at their conclusions? And why not state the amounts of detected foreign DNA so vets and patrons could try to determine if it might be sufficient to trigger an allergic reaction in a very sensitive dog? Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.

Those are very good questions. In Dr. Remillard's studies, she states that we know that there are SOME contaminating proteins sources in some limited ingredient foods, but we don't know how much, and whether it's enough to trigger an allergic reaction. That would be a nice thing to know.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

Thank you for your patient, detailed answer to an amateur out here. Can't help but wonder why they didn't flesh-out their research by doing the comparative testing as you outlined for true controls or if they did do that, why not cite it so people in the know like you could have more confidence in the type of testing they did and methods for arriving at their conclusions? And why not state the amounts of detected foreign DNA so vets and patrons could try to determine if it might be sufficient to trigger an allergic reaction in a very sensitive dog? Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.

Originally Posted by pstinard

Those are very good questions. In Dr. Remillard's studies, she states that we know that there are SOME contaminating proteins sources in some limited ingredient foods, but we don't know how much, and whether it's enough to trigger an allergic reaction. That would be a nice thing to know.

Hi both,


I've pm'd you with a query and I hope you can help. It will detract from the point of this thread if I post the query here so I hope you don't mind. Thanks

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hi both,


I've pm'd you with a query and I hope you can help. It will detract from the point of this thread if I post the query here so I hope you don't mind. Thanks

I just replied to your PM. I was simplifying the explanation .

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I just replied to your PM. I was simplifying the explanation .

Thank you so much - really appreciate it!

[pstinard]

Misty asked me some questions about the meaning of qualitative vs. quantitative when talking about DNA analysis of dog foods, so I thought I would expand on it a little.

Qualitative results are results that are not measured, or are somewhat subjective. Examples include: "The painting has some blue in it." "The stone is smooth." "The people look happy." "The dog food has some soybean DNA in it."

Quantitative results are measurements: "The board is 2 inches X 4 inches X 10 feet." "Bella weighs seven pounds." "The dog food contains 5% soybean protein, by weight."

Back in the 1980's, when I was doing DNA analysis and cloning of genes from corn plants, we had to extract DNA from a lot of plant samples. A plant cell is basically a tiny water balloon filled with carefully separated DNA, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc. Once the cell bursts, everything mixes together. The enzymes that degrade DNA (called nucleases) are no longer separated from the DNA, and the DNA breaks down rapidly at room temperature. When we did DNA extractions, we had to take fresh samples, quick freeze them in liquid nitrogen, grind them while they were still frozen solid, add buffers that inactivate the nucleases, and do a series of procedures to purify the DNA. Everything had to be kept on ice until the nucleases were inactivated or the DNA would be hopelessly degraded and useless. And once we had extracted the DNA, we had to handle it carefully, because stirring the DNA sample would shatter the DNA further, kind of like breaking up dried ramen noodles. I used to joke that if you even looked cross-eyed at the DNA, it would degrade.

Flash forward to modern DNA technology, where you can extract tiny quantities of DNA from 1,000 year old bones, for example. Most of the DNA is degraded and useless, but through a technique called PCR, small pieces of intact DNA can be amplified and analyzed. That is much the same situation with doing DNA analysis of dog food. Once the meats, grains, soybeans, etc. are ground up, the nucleases are breaking down the DNA. PCR can detect small pieces of DNA that are still intact, but if the ground meat has been sitting around too long (think of a package of hamburger sitting around at room temperature all day), it might not have ANY useful DNA in it at all.

That's why I was saying that the results of DNA analysis of dog food are qualitative, not quantitative, even if the results are presented as percentages. You can sometimes detect DNA from a source that is not on the dog food label, but you might not always be able to detect it. In other words, they can tell you that a venison limited ingredient dog food has some soybean DNA in it that shouldn't be there, but they can't tell you how much, and they can't always tell you that it's there, even if some soybeans slipped into the batch--the soybean DNA might have degraded so much that they couldn't detect it. To state this more elegantly, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

So yes, all of the research studies that found DNA in dog food samples that shouldn't be there should be of concern to people who own dogs with food allergies to those contaminating ingredients. We don't know how much contamination is there, and we can't be certain that it will cause an allergic reaction, but it's a very real possibility. And just because a test result came back showing NO contamination doesn't mean that there is no contamination--it just means that none was detected in those particular samples using those particular testing methods.

The best way to do an elimination diet is to make it yourself in consultation with a veterinary nutritionist. The second best is to choose a commercial company with a good track record and excellent quality control.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Misty asked me some questions about the meaning of qualitative vs. quantitative when talking about DNA analysis of dog foods, so I thought I would expand on it a little.

Qualitative results are results that are not measured, or are somewhat subjective. Examples include: "The painting has some blue in it." "The stone is smooth." "The people look happy." "The dog food has some soybean DNA in it."

Quantitative results are measurements: "The board is 2 inches X 4 inches X 10 feet." "Bella weighs seven pounds." "The dog food contains 5% soybean protein, by weight."

Back in the 1980's, when I was doing DNA analysis and cloning of genes from corn plants, we had to extract DNA from a lot of plant samples. A plant cell is basically a tiny water balloon filled with carefully separated DNA, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc. Once the cell bursts, everything mixes together. The enzymes that degrade DNA (called nucleases) are no longer separated from the DNA, and the DNA breaks down rapidly at room temperature. When we did DNA extractions, we had to take fresh samples, quick freeze them in liquid nitrogen, grind them while they were still frozen solid, add buffers that inactivate the nucleases, and do a series of procedures to purify the DNA. Everything had to be kept on ice until the nucleases were inactivated or the DNA would be hopelessly degraded and useless. And once we had extracted the DNA, we had to handle it carefully, because stirring the DNA sample would shatter the DNA further, kind of like breaking up dried ramen noodles. I used to joke that if you even looked cross-eyed at the DNA, it would degrade.

Flash forward to modern DNA technology, where you can extract tiny quantities of DNA from 1,000 year old bones, for example. Most of the DNA is degraded and useless, but through a technique called PCR, small pieces of intact DNA can be amplified and analyzed. That is much the same situation with doing DNA analysis of dog food. Once the meats, grains, soybeans, etc. are ground up, the nucleases are breaking down the DNA. PCR can detect small pieces of DNA that are still intact, but if the ground meat has been sitting around too long (think of a package of hamburger sitting around at room temperature all day), it might not have ANY useful DNA in it at all.

That's why I was saying that the results of DNA analysis of dog food are qualitative, not quantitative, even if the results are presented as percentages. You can sometimes detect DNA from a source that is not on the dog food label, but you might not always be able to detect it. In other words, they can tell you that a venison limited ingredient dog food has some soybean DNA in it that shouldn't be there, but they can't tell you how much, and they can't always tell you that it's there, even if some soybeans slipped into the batch--the soybean DNA might have degraded so much that they couldn't detect it. To state this more elegantly, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

So yes, all of the research studies that found DNA in dog food samples that shouldn't be there should be of concern to people who own dogs with food allergies to those contaminating ingredients. We don't know how much contamination is there, and we can't be certain that it will cause an allergic reaction, but it's a very real possibility. And just because a test result came back showing NO contamination doesn't mean that there is no contamination--it just means that none was detected in those particular samples using those particular testing methods.

The best way to do an elimination diet is to make it yourself in consultation with a veterinary nutritionist. The second best is to choose a commercial company with a good track record and excellent quality control.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify - I think it helps a lot of folks who aren't familiar w/ different types of data.

[pstinard]

Here is one more article about soy protein contaminating limited ingredient dog foods. It doesn't seem to be behind a paywall:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...ae4a6615d5.pdf

This study uses an ELISA antibody test, and IS quantitative (gives a meaningful, measurable result).

Dog foods containing more than 25 PPM (parts per million) soy protein were:

Taste of the Wild High Prairie Canine Formula with Roasted Bison

and Roasted Venison; Taste of the Wild Pet Food, Meta, MO

CANIDAE Grain Free pureSEA with salmon meal; Canidae

Corporation, San Luis Obispo, CA

Hill's Prescription Diet d/d Canine Skin Support Potato & Venison
Formula; Hill's Pet Products Inc., Topeka, KS

Dog foods containing no detectable (<2.5 PPM) soy protein were:

Nature's Variety Prairie Salmon Meal & Brown Rice Medley;
Nature's Variety, Lincoln, NE

IAMS Veterinary Formula Skin & Coat Response FP; P&G Pet Care,
Dayton, OH

IAMS Veterinary Formula Skin & Coat Response KO; P&G Pet Care,
Dayton, OH

Hill's Prescription Diet z/d Canine ULTRA Allergen-Free; Hill's Pet
Products Inc., Topeka, KS

The remaining dog foods contained low levels (detectable, but less than 25 PPM) of soy protein:

Blue Buffalo Basics Salmon and Potato Formula; The Blue Buffalo
Co., Wilton, CT

Purina Veterinary Diets DRM Dermatologic Management Canine
Formula; Nestlé S.A., Vevey, Switzerland

Royal Canin Veterinary Diet Hypoallergenic Hydrolyzed Protein
Adult HP Canine; Royal Canin USA Inc., St. Charles, MO

Purina Veterinary Diet HA Hypoallergenic Canine Formula, Nestlé
S.A., Vevey, Switzerland

Conclusion (quoted from the article):

If the diets evaluated in this study are representative of similar OTC “no soy” claiming products, those products should not be used during an elimination trial in a suspected soy allergic patient. Veterinary therapeutic diets need to be selected carefully based on the patient and the ingredient(s) of concern. A thorough diet history is needed to make the best recommendatons for each patient. Based on these results, a soy allergy cannot be ruled out if a patient fails an elimination trial using a hydrolyzed soy diet. Compliance failure on the part of the owner during the elimination trial should not be assumed.

[pstinard]

In researching the previous article, I found full text COMPLETE versions of three of Dr. Rebecca Remillard's articles on canine nutrition. Go to the following website:

Rebecca L Remillard (Veterinary Nutritional Consultations, inc) on ResearchGate - Expertise: Veterinary Medicine, Nutritional Biochemistry

Click on the name of the article you want to view, and then click on the full text link on the right hand side of the page. My favorite is Handling Alternative Dietary Requests from Pet Owners. Happy reading!!!

[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

In researching the previous article, I found full text COMPLETE versions of three of Dr. Rebecca Remillard's articles on canine nutrition. Go to the following website:

Rebecca L Remillard (Veterinary Nutritional Consultations, inc) on ResearchGate - Expertise: Veterinary Medicine, Nutritional Biochemistry

Click on the name of the article you want to view, and then click on the full text link on the right hand side of the page. My favorite is Handling Alternative Dietary Requests from Pet Owners. Happy reading!!!

I can't seem to get it on my iPhone. Do you have to sign up?

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by 107barney

I can't seem to get it on my iPhone. Do you have to sign up?

I don't remember whether I ever signed up--if I did, it was a long time ago. If you have to sign up to see the articles, at least it's free.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by 107barney

I can't seem to get it on my iPhone. Do you have to sign up?

No, you don't have to sign up. Maybe it only works on a regular computer? I did sign up, and after I did, I could access 25 of her papers. If you don't sign up, you can view three of her papers for free.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Misty asked me some questions about the meaning of qualitative vs. quantitative when talking about DNA analysis of dog foods, so I thought I would expand on it a little.

Qualitative results are results that are not measured, or are somewhat subjective. Examples include: "The painting has some blue in it." "The stone is smooth." "The people look happy." "The dog food has some soybean DNA in it."

Quantitative results are measurements: "The board is 2 inches X 4 inches X 10 feet." "Bella weighs seven pounds." "The dog food contains 5% soybean protein, by weight."

Back in the 1980's, when I was doing DNA analysis and cloning of genes from corn plants, we had to extract DNA from a lot of plant samples. A plant cell is basically a tiny water balloon filled with carefully separated DNA, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc. Once the cell bursts, everything mixes together. The enzymes that degrade DNA (called nucleases) are no longer separated from the DNA, and the DNA breaks down rapidly at room temperature. When we did DNA extractions, we had to take fresh samples, quick freeze them in liquid nitrogen, grind them while they were still frozen solid, add buffers that inactivate the nucleases, and do a series of procedures to purify the DNA. Everything had to be kept on ice until the nucleases were inactivated or the DNA would be hopelessly degraded and useless. And once we had extracted the DNA, we had to handle it carefully, because stirring the DNA sample would shatter the DNA further, kind of like breaking up dried ramen noodles. I used to joke that if you even looked cross-eyed at the DNA, it would degrade.

Flash forward to modern DNA technology, where you can extract tiny quantities of DNA from 1,000 year old bones, for example. Most of the DNA is degraded and useless, but through a technique called PCR, small pieces of intact DNA can be amplified and analyzed. That is much the same situation with doing DNA analysis of dog food. Once the meats, grains, soybeans, etc. are ground up, the nucleases are breaking down the DNA. PCR can detect small pieces of DNA that are still intact, but if the ground meat has been sitting around too long (think of a package of hamburger sitting around at room temperature all day), it might not have ANY useful DNA in it at all.

That's why I was saying that the results of DNA analysis of dog food are qualitative, not quantitative, even if the results are presented as percentages. You can sometimes detect DNA from a source that is not on the dog food label, but you might not always be able to detect it. In other words, they can tell you that a venison limited ingredient dog food has some soybean DNA in it that shouldn't be there, but they can't tell you how much, and they can't always tell you that it's there, even if some soybeans slipped into the batch--the soybean DNA might have degraded so much that they couldn't detect it. To state this more elegantly, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

So yes, all of the research studies that found DNA in dog food samples that shouldn't be there should be of concern to people who own dogs with food allergies to those contaminating ingredients. We don't know how much contamination is there, and we can't be certain that it will cause an allergic reaction, but it's a very real possibility. And just because a test result came back showing NO contamination doesn't mean that there is no contamination--it just means that none was detected in those particular samples using those particular testing methods.

The best way to do an elimination diet is to make it yourself in consultation with a veterinary nutritionist. The second best is to choose a commercial company with a good track record and excellent quality control.

Oh, thanks Phil. I hope this helps others. However, I am not confused re: the definitions of the two methodologies but I was confused re: YOUR definitions as it pertained to the usage of percentages and I thought the disparity may have lay in our disciplines or countries of education/practice.


But, you've cleared up your reasoning for me so thanks for that!


Back to our regularly scheduled program!

[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

No, you don't have to sign up. Maybe it only works on a regular computer? I did sign up, and after I did, I could access 25 of her papers. If you don't sign up, you can view three of her papers for free.

Thanks for the tips! I'll have to try it from my regular computer.

[kay6688]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

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.

My Remi and Jax are both on the prescription Hills Salmon & are doing awesome - about a year and a half now! Remi had scratched all the hair off her ears & Jax had bald spots from scratching, they have beautiful thick full hair now & no more itching on the Hills Prescription Salmon -