A new study – a new suspicious and VERY confusing study – claims that raw pet food is a risk to carry antibiotic resistant E. coli. They go so far as stating that raw pet foods are an antibiotic resistant bacteria “threat”. But…
The study included 223 dogs from one geographic area in the United Kingdom. Each family provided researchers a stool sample from their dog which was tested for E.coli contamination. Their results appear to state that 108 of the total 223 dogs stool tested positive for an antibiotic resistant bacteria; 32 dogs that consumed raw pet food and 76 dogs that ate undisclosed styles of pet food.
Concern #1
Even though this study associated the risk of antibiotic resistant E. coli ONLY with raw pet food, it does not disclose what other styles of pet food were consumed by the dogs in the study. Of the 108 dogs whose stool tested positive, only 32 of those dogs consumed raw pet food. The study does not disclose what style of food the other 76 dogs that tested positive ate. Why?
What if all of the 76 antibiotic resistant E. coli positive dogs that food type was undisclosed consumed kibble? (Because kibble is the most popular style of pet food, this is VERY possible.) If it was, then the outcome of the study would be completely different. IF those 76 dogs consumed kibble, the study would have shown that kibble would be the greatest risk with 70% of all antibiotic resistant E. coli positives.
Concern #2
The study asked participants some interesting questions regarding potential exposures to antibiotic resistant E. coli. Such as: did the dog walk on farmland or swim/play in lake, river, pond, or salt water? And the study provided negative and positive test results with each of these exposures. With the question did the dog walk on farmland, 142 of 223 participants responded yes. Of those 142 farm-walker dogs, 69 of their stools tested positive for an antibiotic resistant E. coli.
Unfortunately, the study doesn’t clarify what other risk factors the raw fed dogs (and the undisclosed style fed dogs) were exposed to. Such as, if the 32 of the total 223 dogs that tested positive for an antibiotic resistant E. coli ate raw pet food…did they also walk on farmland or swim in a pond (other risk factors of the study)? How many of the raw fed dogs said yes to other risks? How many of the undisclosed styles of pet food said yes to other risks? The study neglects to disclose this information.
They did seem to hand pick six results (six of 108 positives) that showed only one example of another risk exposure for a raw fed dog (see Table 2). However, they did not include information for any other style of pet food.
Concern #3
The study used whole genome sequencing to determine the specific species of E.coli found in each stool sample. In this section they provided data for 36 dogs, 18 raw fed and 18 unknown style of pet food. Significantly, the exact same strains of antibiotic resistant E. coli was found in BOTH raw fed dogs and the dogs fed an undisclosed styles of pet food.
As example, Table 3 of the study states “Dog 9” stool – a raw fed dog – contained “ST162 E. coli”. But…”Dog 14” – a dog that did NOT consume raw pet food – stool also contained “ST162 E. coli”.
This same similar E. coli strains between both raw pet food fed dogs and undisclosed style of pet food fed dogs continues through all 36 results provided in Table 3. So…if identical strains of an antibiotic resistant bacteria was found in BOTH raw pet food fed dogs and perhaps kibble fed dogs – how in the world can this study come to the conclusion that raw pet food is the certain “threat”?
Concern #4
It does not appear that this study tested any pet foods that the antibiotic resistant E. coli dogs consumed to definitively link the bacteria to the pet food. If the scientists truly believed that raw pet food is a risk, wouldn’t it have been appropriate to confirm their belief thru pet food testing? It could have been so simple. When pet owners provided researchers a stool sample from their pet, they could have also provided a small pet food sample at the same time.
Or…would testing of pet food samples have disproved their intended purpose? (To scare pet owners away from raw pet food.)
The name of this study is: “Evidence that faecal carriage of resistant Escherichia coli by 16-week-old dogs in the United Kingdome is associated with raw feeding”. Personally, I did not read any “evidence” in the study to prove that raw pet food is the association.
Disclaimer: I’m not a scientist. I’ve read a lot of studies and this one stands as the most confusing I’ve ever read. (I wonder if confusion was their intention.) Because I am not a scientist and because this study was so confusing, it is possible that I am misinterpreting the results. If I learn of anything I have reported here is incorrect – this post will be edited.
Wishing you and your pet 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. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2022 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
spookywanluke
July 28, 2022 at 2:12 pm
As a scientist (specifically qa/qc) what the summaries are reporting is absolutely horrendous. In no way could you make a conclusion like that with that sort of evidence in any field I’ve worked in!
Jo-Anne
July 28, 2022 at 2:14 pm
Seems to me that the pet food industry is feeling threatened by raw pet food. I guess it is catching on!
I hope the people who make decisions, whoever they are, will be suspicious of this so-called study. I imagine it was paid for by the pet food industry.
Barbara Fellnermayr
July 28, 2022 at 2:50 pm
Who paid for the study? Report from scientific examinations are always going to show the payor in good light. The one who isn’t paying gets dumped on. I really don’t think this report is worth the paper its written on. I think I would use it to wipe my ecoli free dog’s but! (raw fed dog)
Kristi Wright
April 2, 2024 at 11:41 am
That was my question as well. WHO funded this “study”. WHO is benefitting from the less than factual results? I feed raw. A fully scientifically created recipe to provide all needed nutrients. When I get negative comments on feeding raw (which I do) I will be happy to bring this study up. The misleading and inaccurate title as well as faulty research and withheld information. It’s sad. I want what’s best for my dog. They want money.
T Allen
July 28, 2022 at 3:24 pm
The purpose of the study was to see if a human urinary tract infections with antibiotic resistant E coli could be coming from dogs as young as 16 weeks old. It looks like they proved it was more likely with feeding raw commercial food. They aren’t saying feeding raw is “bad” or kibble is better just that people with poopy puppies need to be especially careful with cleaning up feces. Especially if there are susceptible people in the household. Everyone feeding raw should know they are exposing their pets and selves to all kinds of diseases and parasites. The study even mentions a previous study done with raw poultry, coprophagy, adult dog & raw meat. ABR is a serious problem. The only thing they don’t mention, which is likely because there is nothing that can be done about it, is the fact that the Ministry of Defence tested broadcast E.coli 162 as a biological weapon on 2 towns in farmland in GB in the 60’s. You can’t make this bleep up! https://metro.co.uk/2006/10/27/e-coli-was-tested-on-uk-towns-296270/
Saba
July 28, 2022 at 4:32 pm
Would also be interesting to follow the money and see who funded this “study.” That will tell you a lot about how and why results were interpreted in the way they were. Oftentimes, sloppy studies are designed to fein a scientific quality they do not have (bc sample is too small, there is no real control group, other relevant factors haven’t been included, etc)—basically the are done for marketing purposes and to deceive the reader. It is unfortunate but that is where we are now and explains why ppl don’t take actual science seriously anymore.
Janet Velenovsky
July 28, 2022 at 4:58 pm
As we have learned all too well in the past few years, when people don’t have good science/facts, they often fear-monger instead. Sounds like a perfect example of that in this study.
Fern
July 28, 2022 at 6:03 pm
I read this same study earlier today. As a scientist, I was amazed that this could even get published. The study protocol has no inherent logic. To start with, there is no control group. Also, most antibiotic resistant bugs appear after antibiotic use in the host; there is no notation in this study about whether there was antibiotic use in the dogs or in the people in the households. This question is not just “relevant” but absolutely crucial. And to T Allen. in re “Everyone feeding raw should know they are exposing their pets and selves to all kinds of diseases and parasites,” that just isn’t true. It’s hype to scare people away from raw feeding. Have you ever eaten sushi or rare beef? Exactly the same risks, and they are low. I personally think most people are perfectly capable of reasonable risk evaluation and management, if they have correct information rather than unsupported allegations from scare programs. As a matter of fact, most pathogen reports in pet food come from KIBBLE, not raw foods. And here is my final question, and enquiring minds really want to know: how are they postulating that a resistant E coli is getting from dog stool into a human urinary tract? That might suggest behaviors that most of the populace does not engage in. Really.
Kathryn
July 29, 2022 at 5:49 am
Exactly!!! Fern, I don’t know your field of expertise, but this ‘study’ was simply a Study in Stupidity!
Any one should be able to see the flaws…
Won’t hold water!
Lindblom
July 28, 2022 at 8:23 pm
I am very opposed to the criticism of academic papers by non-experts without statistical knowledge, because it is a matter of basic statistics and they do not understand it. There is no reason to use variables that are not significant in the correlation p value in multiple regression analysis.
I laugh at the questioning of the comments because I am absurd. Funding? lol
Pet Owner
August 1, 2022 at 2:15 pm
I think it’s sad that pet owners are FORCED into choosing raw food in order to avoid kibble and feed grade ingredients. Raw offers relative convenience. Instead of home cooking. It is a bioavailable source of protein, and a meal free of inappropriate carbohydrates, usually with a compliment of nutritious vegetables. However, it comes with its own complications. Choosing HPP treated raw, compromises it a bit. Raw, is still raw. And precautions have to be taken in terms of staying healthy and safe. Yet, I’m more concerned picking up poop from my dogs eating a raw diet (or walking into it) than kibble. But that isn’t a good excuse. I don’t comingle the raw food dishes with human dishes. And I have fuzzy, furry boisterous pups, who get raw food messed up in their faces, or fur on their paws from licking, inside crates, or they accidentally scratch me with very sharp nails. And who knows, what are they walking on out on the grass and patio. People argue, we handle raw human food all the time. But we deal with it from a controlled point to point. Pkg. to pan to plate. And it doesn’t get diverted all over the place.
Where along the line was it EVER decided that dogs just “because” they’re animals should eat substandard food at all? What’s wrong with giving them the food we eat? And THAT’s where we should be at. Cook the protein minimally, and include plenty of human edible supportive nutrients. And get those balanced supplements. THEN we no longer have to worry about these foolish, irrelevant studies, and make judgement calls. Just avoid feed grade food, period!
How much more simple does it get. Food for people and balanced for dogs, end of story. Domesticated dogs are not wolves. And wolves ate what was available. They didn’t have as long a life, anyway. And we have no idea what diseases they acquired along the way. I have some who handle it well, and one who doesn’t, and won’t keep weight on. Turns into very loose stools. I’m afraid, with him, that the wrong bacteria could harm him. And it’s not (actually) a natural solution. Although it looks like it. But raw is as much of an “initiative” as all other formats of food.
Home cooking is the very best!
Elizabeth M Cole
April 3, 2024 at 9:59 am
I’d love to know WHO sponsored this “research”. Follow the money. It’ll tell you all you need to know. I’m betting it’s a kibble company. Good article by Truth About Pet Food though. I’ll stick with raw feeding my dog.