A new DCM (dilated cardiomyopathy) study – published May 15, 2020 from multiple scientists at University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine is concerning, but probably not in the way you think. Why was the study criteria set up in the way it was? But most importantly, why did the researchers miss a HUGE error?
The study states: “We hypothesized that golden retrievers eating non-traditional diets are at a higher risk of having taurine deficiency and nutritionally-mediated DCM compared with those eating traditional commercial diets. We aimed to compare taurine concentrations and echocardiographic indices of systolic function between golden retrievers in each diet group and elucidate associations between diet and these variables.”
The study explains their two categories – “Traditional Diets” and “Non-Traditional Diets” as:
“Traditional diets (TD) were required to meet all of the following criteria: kibble diets which are grain-inclusive, not including legumes or potatoes in the top 5 ingredients listed and be produced by a pet food company with >$2 billion in global sales for 2018. Non-traditional diets (NTD) had to meet one of the following criteria: kibble or raw food diet which is grain free, includes legumes or potatoes in the ingredient list, or is manufactured by a small pet food company with <$1 billion in global sales for 2018.”
Looking at these two study established pet food categories and the required criteria of each side by side:
The study was set up to intentionally exclude any pet foods other than those from the top four manufacturers as a ‘traditional diet’. The ONLY pet food manufacturers that have sales greater than $2 billion are the top four listed below:
This study clearly pits Mars, Purina, Smucker and Hill’s against the rest of the pet food industry. Why? Of what benefit to science/research is comparing pet foods with sales over $2 billion to those with sales under $1 billion?
(Lost somewhere between traditional and non-traditional is Diamond Pet Foods (Taste of the Wild, 4Health, Nature’s Domain, Diamond, Kirkland) and General Mills (Blue Buffalo) – their sales are less than the required ‘greater than $2 billion in global sales’ for traditional pet foods but more than the limit of ‘less than $1 billion’ for non-traditional pet foods.)
The big mistake…
The study claimed their hypothesis was proven; “The current study affirmed our hypothesis and further validates the findings of multiple previous studies and the FDA alert. Grain free diets, produced by small companies, including legumes within the top 5 ingredients represent a risk for the development of taurine deficiency and echocardiographic abnormalities consistent with DCM in the golden retriever.“
In other words, the study is saying they proved that pet foods made by Mars, Purina, Smuckers or Hills – that do not contain potatoes or legumes in the first five ingredients – are less of a risk to cause heart disease in dogs than all the other pet foods on the planet.
But…we found a significant error.
Looking at study criteria #2 for Traditional Diets (the diets the study determined not be of risk to cause heart disease in dogs) – the study required these pet foods to contain no legume or potato ingredient within the first five ingredients.
For the sake of clarity, the FDA states (bold added for emphasis) “Legumes are part of the Fabaceae plant family and are the fruit or seed of these plants. Common legumes include peas, beans, lentils, chickpeas, soybeans and peanuts.”
Soybeans are legumes…something the researchers completely missed.
The study stated the foods below qualified as Traditional Diets – those that the study stated did NOT contain a potato or legume within the first five ingredients and those that the study found not to be of risk to cause heart disease in dogs (3 are in bold – explained below):
Purina ProPlan Focus Adult Sensitive Skin and Stomach Salmon and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Sport Performance 30/20 Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Bright Mind Adult Chicken and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Bright Mind Adult 7+ Turkey and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Savor Shredded Blend Adult Chicken and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Focus Puppy Large Breed Chicken and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina ProPlan Focus Adult Large Breed Formula Dry Dog Food
Purina One Smart Blend Healthy Weight Formula Adult Premium Dog Food (dry)
Purina ProPlan Veterinary Diets OM Overweight Management Canine Formula (dry)
Purina ProPlan Veterinary Diets EN Gastroenteric Canine Formula (dry)
Royal Canin Canine Gastrointestinal Low-Fat Dry Dog Food
Royal Canin Golden Retriever Adult Dry Dog Food
Royal Canin Large Adult Dry Dog Food
Royal Canin Golden Retriever Puppy Dry Dog Food
Eukanuba Adult Large Breed Dog Food (dry)
Eukanuba Performance Dog Food: Active Dog Food (dry)
However, we found that all three of the “Traditional Diets” in bold above contained a soybean ingredient (legume) within the first five, presently and in 2017 and 2018 when the study participants were recruited.
Purina ProPlan Savor Shredded Blend Adult Chicken and Rice Formula Dry Dog Food
In 2020, the first five ingredients of this pet food are listed as: “Chicken, rice flour, whole grain wheat, poultry by-product meal (source of glucosamine), soybean meal“.
In 2017, when dogs were being recruited for this study, the first five ingredients of this pet food were listed as: “Chicken, Brewers Rice, Whole Grain Wheat, Poultry By-Product Meal (Source of Glucosamine), Soybean Meal“.
This pet food did NOT meet the established criteria of the study for Traditional Diet because it contained a legume within the first five ingredients. Four dogs in the Traditional Diet group consumed this dog food. This pet food and the four dogs consuming this diet should not have been included in the study under the Traditional Diet category.
Purina One Smart Blend Healthy Weight Formula Adult Premium Dog Food (dry)
From Chewy.com – in 2020, the first five ingredients of this pet food are listed as: “Turkey (Source of Glucosamine), Rice Flour, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken By-Product Meal“.
The Purina website lists ingredients slightly different in 2020 than Chewy.com; the first five ingredients of this pet food are listed as: “Turkey, chicken meal, soy flour, beef fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols“.
In 2017, when dogs were being recruited for this study, the first five ingredients of this pet food were listed as: “Turkey (Source of Glucosamine), Brewer’s Rice, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Poultry By-Product Meal“.
Again, this pet food did not meet the established criteria of the study for Traditional Diet. One dog in the Traditional Diet group of the study consumed this dog food. This pet food and the dog consuming it should not have been included in the study.
And…
Purina ProPlan Veterinary Diets OM Overweight Management Canine Formula (dry)
In 2020, the first five ingredients of this pet food are listed as: “Whole Grain Corn, Corn Gluten Meal, Soybean Hulls**, Soybean Germ Meal, Soybean Meal“.
In 2018, when dogs were being recruited for this study, the first five ingredients of this pet food contained a whopping 4 legume ingredients; “Ground Yellow Corn, Soybean Meal, Soybean Germ Meal, Soybean Hulls**, Soy Flour“.
And yet again, this pet food did not meet the established criteria of the study for Traditional Diet. One dog in the Traditional Diet group of the study consumed this dog food. This pet food and the dog consuming it should not have been included in the study.
In total, the study included 6 dogs – or 14% of the Traditional Diet group that should not have been included as the foods these dogs ate did not meet the study criteria. How could the researchers miss this? Were they not aware that soybeans are a legume?
It could be the researchers didn’t consider soybeans as a potential risk ingredient as other legume ingredients. However, nowhere within the paper did the researchers clarify that soybeans were excluded.
Which brings up the question…
The FDA has stated that based on the reports of DCM diagnosed dogs or dogs that have died due to DCM provided to the agency “The common thread appears to be legumes, pulses (seeds of legumes), and/or potatoes as main ingredients in the food.” The FDA also defined ‘main ingredients’ as “We generally consider a “main ingredient” to be the first 10 ingredients listed in a food’s ingredient list before the first vitamin or mineral ingredient.”
If legumes as a main ingredient are the suspect cause of DCM in some dogs, why did 3 pet foods in this study that contained legumes as a main ingredient (one with 4 of the first five ingredients a legume) pass as a non-problematic diet? Yes, the pet foods were placed in the ‘does not seem to cause DCM’ category by mistake, but the fact remains – these three pet foods were reported to be diets that did not cause DCM in 6 study subjects even though they contained a legume as a main ingredient.
A few more questions about the study…
The study required dogs that participated to be fed the Traditional Diet or Non-traditional diet for a minimum of 3 months. Would 3 months be a sufficient time frame to definitively link a dog food to causing heart disease?
As well, the researchers gave a significant edge to the ‘does not seem to cause DCM’ category Traditional Diets.
“The median number of months a dog was fed a diet was shorter in the TD group with a median of 7 compared to the NTD group with a median of 18. There were a total of 6 dogs in the TD group and 1 dog in the NTD group that were fed their diet for the minimum of 3 months prior to study enrollment.”
The dogs in the ‘does not seem to cause DCM’ category Traditional Diets averaged ONLY seven months on the food. The dogs in the ‘probable to cause DCM’ Non-traditional diet group averaged 18 months on those dog foods. Is this a fair comparison? Further, six dogs in the ‘does not seem to cause DCM’ category Traditional Diets were ONLY eating the diet for the required minimum (3 months). Can this be considered unbiased science when the scales are this far out of balance?
Last but not least, the study states “When evaluated, the FDA data also identifies an inverse relationship/correlation between the size of a company in terms of worldwide sales and the number of reported cases of DCM where smaller companies have the highest reported case numbers.”
This statement is not accurate. When the FDA data is compiled by manufacturer, it looks like this:
Diamond Pet food – with the largest number of pets reported to FDA – sales are $1.5 billion, General Mills with 31 reports (5th highest) to FDA has sales of $1.4 billion, and Mars, Smucker and Purina all with sales above the study’s $2 billion mark made the top ten list of reports to FDA.
It is the responsibility of study authors to validate their facts, to validate the study met their published criteria. They did not.
Why would UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine put out a study like this? It is beyond understanding without wondering if there was a particular agenda the researchers were trying (but failed) to achieve. Let’s hope this study was just an example of poorly conducted research…and not a study with an agenda that researchers would do anything including cheat to achieve. Let’s hope science hasn’t fallen that far.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2020 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Cannoliamo
May 26, 2020 at 11:52 am
Obvious question …… Is it possible that Mars, Purina, Smuckers or Hills contributed to the funding of this research?
Debbie D
May 26, 2020 at 3:05 pm
That was my question as well. This sounds completely bias and this study should be thrown in the garbage..it is NULL AND VOID.
Kathy Sallaz
May 26, 2020 at 12:12 pm
This is such a confusing issue. My dogs are thriving on TOW grain free. Vet recommends Royal Canin or Pro Plan, they have all the ingredients I’ve learned to avoid…
Regina
May 26, 2020 at 1:10 pm
OMG, Royal Canin is the absolute worst if you look at ingredients!
Regina
May 26, 2020 at 1:21 pm
Mars, which makes Nutro, which claims to be a good food (actually, feed) , also makes Royal Canin and Pedigree. I’m sorry, but make up your mind.
I am copying and pasting here, the brands Mars makes: About Mars Petcare With over 75 years of experience, Mars Petcare has developed an enviable portfolio of almost 50 brands, including the leading global pet nutrition brands PEDIGREE™, WHISKAS™, ROYAL CANIN™, NUTRO™, GREENIES™, SHEBA™, CESAR™, IAMS™ and EUKANUBA™.
Each of their products they claim are good for your pet. Then why do they need so many brands? They claim to have almost 50 brands.
The healthier pet FOOD brands don’t have so many different “brands” to choose from.
(I’m having trouble with my laptop, I’m giving up on it now, will be back later!)
Matthew OLeary
May 26, 2020 at 1:51 pm
Dr. Joshua A Stern has financial ties to Nestle, Mars, and Hills. It is simply a blatant witch-hunt on the ’boutique’ brands that he and Dr. Freeman started. The only question you need – if Nestle, Mars and Hills see grain free as terrible for dogs, why haven’t they immediately stopped producing these options in their own lines?
Krista J
May 26, 2020 at 5:29 pm
I’m curious as to whether this study was published in a peer reviewed journal. It seems that these issues should have been brought to light during the peer review process. I don’t put much weight into studies that are not published in a peer reviewed journal. If it was, then I guess I might need to start looking askance at even those studies. It’s always a wonder how far and deep corruption has spread. University studies should be held to the highest of standards. “For if gold rusts, what then shall iron do?”
Susan Thixton
May 26, 2020 at 5:32 pm
The study posted here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233206 – states it was peer reviewed (top of page).
Tina
June 26, 2020 at 3:39 am
This article lists 6 things wrong the with the scientific setup: https://www.petfoodindustry.com/blogs/10-debunking-pet-food-myths-and-misconceptions/post/9339-weird-science-published-pet-food-studies-not-always-sound
Dianne & Pets
July 1, 2020 at 1:12 am
That article is well worth reading. I was very surprised to see something like this in a pet food industry publication.
Tina
July 1, 2020 at 9:34 am
Yeah there should be more balanced viewpoints in pet industry literature. A year or so ago, when PetCo first announced their campaign to remove major artificial ingredients from all their foods, the same industry expert of the previous link, Ryan Yamka, made some very critical assertions that PetCo’s move was not entirely altruistic & contained hypocritical elements:
https://www.petfoodindustry.com/blogs/10-debunking-pet-food-myths-and-misconceptions/post/7956-fake-news-petco-drops-pet-food-with-artificial-ingredients
Amy
May 27, 2020 at 8:27 am
The article states how the study was funded: via a philanthropic arm at UCDavis. Anyone can give. Anyone. Including the manufacturers. The link to how they were funded is here: https://give.ucdavis.edu/VCAH
Concerned
May 28, 2020 at 3:06 pm
CONFLICT OF INTEREST – YOU THINK!!!!!
https://savma.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/pet-food-program/purina
What is the pet food program?
SAVMA offers this program to all registered SAVMA members, VMTH Residents, Faculty, and Staff at the beginning of each school year. This program allows the UC Davis Vet Med community to receive the Pet Food they love at heavily discounted prices while also helping their SAVMA Chapter.
The Pet Food Program is a major fundraiser for UC Davis SAVMA! Membership in this program goes directly back to the UC Davis SAVMA Chapter to-
fund students attending national and international SAVMA and research conferences.
subsidize costs of valuable externship experiences.
support philanthropic endeavors such as Our Oath in Action.
subsidize surgical packs for the 3rd year surgery course.
provide scholarships to the students.
The SAVMA Pet Food Program runs from September through May of each school year, with some company programs continuing through the summer. The student company representatives are responsible for coordinating and managing distributions. For additional questions, please contact these student representatives about their respective ordering systems. Contact information can be accessed below.
Also, see the below chart for some of the basic differences between companies.
Membership fees remain static throughout the year, so sign up early to take advantage of this membership benefit!
Hill’s Pet Nutrition
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Hill’s VIP Market program (formerly referred to as the Hill’s Staff Feeding and College Feeding Programs).
Through the new Hill’s VIP Market many key feeding program benefits remain the same:
25% discount off List Price for faculty, residents and staff
50% discount off List Price for students
Ability to order all Hill’s Prescription Diet, Science Diet, and Healthy Advantage products (dry, canned and treats). Ideal Balance will be discontinued in September 2019.
Ability to order up to 120 lb per month
Royal Canin
University Feeding Program
Royal Canin® is pleased to announce the introduction of our University Feeding Program (UFP). The UFP will give veterinary faculty, residents, students, and staff access to our line of veterinary diets for their personal pets at a reduced price. Note: You DO NOT need a prescription to order veterinary diets through Royal Canin UFP.
Point of Contact: Royal Canin Student Co-Representative: Jeff Lowenthal (jclowenthal@ucdavis.edu) and Allison O’Donnel (adodonnell@ucdavis.edu)
Highlights for Royal Canin
50% discount on ALL Royal Canin Diets. Limit 120 pounds.
A prescription is not needed for students, residents or faculty (staff will need to email the rep a prescription)
Free shipment direct to residence (no PO box addresses will be accepted)
Dianne & Pets
May 26, 2020 at 5:32 pm
Not a point they would voluntarily raise, nor answer if they can gobblely-speak their way out of it. Excellent point. When universities were first starting to accept industry sponsorship, many scientist said it was a bad idea fraught with all kinds of peril, well, they were right.
Larry A. Gauthier
May 29, 2020 at 9:32 pm
Great job Susan! You investigate matters like I did when I evaluated Army aviation units. It was surprising how many mistakes were made in their documents.
Tina
May 30, 2020 at 5:59 am
The study looks awfully designed. Even if there weren’t the soybeans-are-legumes issue, the categorizations of traditional vs non traditional diets make no sense on any of the criteria. Can’t believe study was published in PLOS.
Stephanie
October 14, 2020 at 8:20 am
All I know is my dog was diagnosed with DCM – after eating a diet for years (she’s 6) – that contained peas, potatoes, and chickpeas in the top 10 ingredients. I could have lost her. Her condition is REVERSING after switching to Purina Pro Plan Sensitive Stomach Salmon and Rice. I will never go back to “boutique” foods.(And I used to be the BIGGEST dog food snob there was!!)
Natalie
November 10, 2020 at 8:08 am
Hi Stephanie Please read this – https://www.petage.com/peer-reviewed-studies-would-benefit-the-dcm-dilemma/
Jeff
September 21, 2021 at 1:52 pm
Stephanie,
I am right there with you. I have a Shiba Inu that was diagnosed with Diet related DCM from a board certified cardiologist after an Echo. Shiba’s are not predispositioned to have this disease. We switched diet as well using 50% PPP Sensitive Skin and Stomach Rice formula and Nom Nom fresh food and my dogs diagnosed has completely reversed. Fortunately we caught it early as well. Don’t let skeptics like this scare people. Facts matter.
Kathy OConnell
January 21, 2022 at 10:20 am
I have fed my dogs TOW grain free food for over 10 years. I am now on my second dog with DCM. I will be switching.
Kathy OConnell
January 21, 2022 at 10:23 am
All of my dogs are bully breeds and not considered to be at risk or predisposed to DCM.
Michelle
December 19, 2020 at 1:31 pm
What is WSAVA and how do they play into the scare tactics of DCM? There are so many Facebook groups that say that if you don’t use one of the five leading producers of dog food that your dog will die of DCM—— to them its WSAVA or nothing.