A new study published June 12, 2020 found two of ten dog chews were not ‘rawhide free’.
Published in the Journal of Histotechnology, titled “Microscopic examination of dog chews: correlation of histological findings to product labeling” – this new study of dog chews is concerning for pet owners wishing to avoid rawhide treats.
The study is not published for public view, thus we cannot share it with pet owners. The abstract can be read here (same page has information to purchase).
The study was done blind, researches only had access to products classified by letters (Product A, Product B,…). Three rawhide dog chews were examined and compared to seven dog chews labeled as “rawhide free“. The paper was published without disclosing the brand names of the treats, however it did disclose the first five ingredients of all products. Of the treats that were labeled rawhide free, we found through Google search all but one of the assumed product names.
“Based on histologic findings, Products A, B, C, D, F, H, I, and J were compatible with the labeled ingredients. Products E and G were labeled as rawhide-free products, but given the similar histologic appearance to dermis and to other products labeled as rawhide, these products appear to be mislabeled.”
Products A, C, and F were rawhide products.
Product B – believed to be NutriChomps Chicken Dog Treat.
“Product B Rawhide free” – ingredients: “Chicken, corn, pig skin, rice, glycerin“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was NutriChomps Chicken dog treats.
The study found this product was properly labeled, determined it was a rawhide free dog treat.
Product D – believed to be Cheezie Chews Rawhide Free Dog Treat.
“Product D Rawhide free” – Ingredients: “Cheese (skim milk, lime, enzymes), chicken meal, rice flour, potato starch, gylcerin“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was Cheezie Chews Rawhide Free Dog Treats. The Cheezie Chews website was not accessible, confirmation of ingredients was found through an independent retailer of the treats.
The study found this product was properly labeled, determined it was a rawhide free dog treat. However the study found bacteria and fungi present in the treat.
Product E – believed to be No Hide Chicken Dog Treat.
“Product E Rawhide free” – Ingredients: “Chicken, Chicken gelatin, brown rice flour, organic eggs“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was Earth Animal Chicken No Hide. Multiple pet store websites provided confirmation of ingredient match, however the Earth Animal website provided slightly different ingredient listing. A search on the WayBack Machine provided final confirmation with an identical match of ingredients from a 2019 Earth Animal webpage.
The study stated “The identified components of the filler of Product E, including the starch granule size, were compatible with the labeled ingredients. However, the rolled segment of Product E, advertised as rawhide free, histologically appeared similar to the dermis and to the other labeled rawhide products in Group 3.” In other words under examination the study found this dog treat examined to be similar to rawhide.
The study also found bacteria in this dog chew.
The paper also provided microscopic images of examination of Product E (assumed to be No Hide per ingredients) compared to a rawhide product, and stated “Note the similarity of the arrangement of the eosinophilic bundles” of Product E with Product A, a rawhide product. In other words, under microscopic examination Product E assumed to be No Hide dog chew appeared similar to researchers as a rawhide dog chew.
The study did not find this product was properly labeled as “rawhide free“.
Product G – unknown.
“Product G Beef chew/Rawhide free” – Ingredients: “Beef“. We could not determine the brand name of this product through Internet search.
The study stated “The Product G label indicated that beef was the only ingredient. The ingredient ‘beef’ is defined as striated muscle with attached skin and connective tissue. Striated muscle was not identified in the H&E sections examined, nor were any other tissue types found.” In other words, this dog chew product did not contain beef as it was labeled, or any other animal tissue.
The study did not find this product was properly labeled as “rawhide free“.
Product H – believed to be Walmart Ol’ Roy Bright Bones.
“Product H Rawhide free” – Ingredients: “Chicken, pork gelatin, rice starch, sugar cane fiber, glycerin“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was Walmart Ol’ Roy Bright Bones.
The study found this product was properly labeled, determined it was a rawhide free dog treat.
Product I – believed to be Pet Cravings Smart Sticks.
“Product I Rawhide free” – Ingredients: “Corn, chicken, glycerin, sorbitol, fructose“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was Pet Cravings Smart Sticks.
The study found this product was properly labeled, determined it was a rawhide free dog treat. However the study found bacteria present in the treat.
Product J – believed to be Luv Chew.
And “Product J Rawhide free” – ingredients: “Chicken, Tapioca, potato, gelatin, carrot“. The only product found with identical first five ingredients was Luv Chew.
The study found this product was properly labeled, determined it was a rawhide free dog treat. However the study found bacteria present in the treat.
When will regulatory authorities – FDA and State Department of Agriculture – finally step up and properly investigate treats that could be grossly misleading pet owners? Treat manufacturers that are misleading consumers with claims of rawhide free should be held accountable for their label/marketing claims.
If you have been misled by one of the above treats, please contact FDA and your State Department of Agriculture asking them to read this study and properly investigate the manufacturers. You can email FDA at: AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov. You can locate your State Department of Agriculture representatives here: https://www.aafco.org/Regulatory.
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.
Janet Byrnes
June 15, 2020 at 5:52 pm
Susan, thank you for posting this article. “No Hide” killed my sweet, little Charley by a slow, painful death. It first caused a blockage, which eventually cleared without surgery. But in the meantime he couldn’t keep down his anti-seizure meds and spent a week in the hospital trying to get his seizures under control in addition to helping him with the GI damage. It damaged his gut so badly that he developed dysbiosis and a host of other GI problems. For 3 months we struggled to get him healed from the “No Hide” damage. We went to multiple vets and specialists, who performed thousands of dollars in tests. And we tried everything they recommended, which wasn’t much. Finally he couldn’t fight any more and we had to let him go.
I showed the “No Hide” product to his vet, who put it in water and waited for the dough and gelatin to disintegrate or at least soften. It never did, and she told me it appeared to be rawhide.
I requested investigation from the FDA and my state Department of Agriculture. They said they would investigate but never got back in touch.
T Allen
June 15, 2020 at 9:24 pm
I’m so sorry for your loss! I filed a complaint with the FDA about shards of glass in a supplement I was taking and never could get a response either. It appears we are know on our own for dealing with these companies. Attorneys are no help either unless you have a LOT of money. All we can do is tell our stories to as many people as possible and try and warn and educate them. Hitting these companies in the pocketbook is the ONLY way to stop this!
Dawn
June 15, 2020 at 11:14 pm
I’m so sorry you and your precious Charley went through this trauma. Peace.
Dianne & Pets
June 16, 2020 at 1:34 am
Would putting a piece of any treat claiming to be rawhide free in water and seeing how it reacts be a way to test for ourselves?
Janet Byrnes
June 16, 2020 at 10:15 am
It depends on what it claims to be made of. “No Hide” claimed to be mainly gelatin and flour, products that should dissolve or at least soften in water.
Rodger Watkins
June 16, 2020 at 6:34 pm
No…stomach acid is quite different than simple water. Put an apple in water – it doesn’t dissolve! Does that mean its made of rawhide?
BillNyeismyHero
June 21, 2020 at 3:08 pm
Hey Dianne & Pets, You can do what I did. Any treat that has starch in it, like from flour, will change color in the presence of iodine. You can test any chew you want this way. If the chew has a flavor coating make sure you test the coating separately from the chew in case the flavor coat has starch and the chew doesn’t. It doesn’t take much starch for the iodine to change color. For No Hide pry the roll open and splash some iodine on the chew roll without any of flavor coating.
Earth Animal
June 16, 2020 at 6:57 pm
Dear Ms. Byrnes,
We are very sorry to hear about the loss of your Charley. We kindly request for you to please reach out to us at customerservice@earthanimal.com so that we can learn more about your situation.
With our sincere thanks,
Earth Animal
Janet Byrnes
June 24, 2020 at 9:42 pm
Dear “Earth Animal,” (I can’t address you by name because you haven’t given one.)
You were advised of the injury to Charley immediately and never reached out to me. That spoke volumes.
I can only assume that you have commented here because it’s a public forum, and lots of people are reading this. I have no intention of contacting you at this point.
Robyn Carlton
June 18, 2020 at 11:00 am
So very sorry for your loss, and I thank you very much for sharing your familys’ nightmare.
Dianne & Pets
June 16, 2020 at 1:38 am
I am a little confused in the reading. Did products A,C and F claim to be raw hide free?
Susan Thixton
June 16, 2020 at 7:43 am
The way I understood the paper, products A, C and F were labeled as rawhide. All the others were labeled as rawhide free.
Jackie
June 16, 2020 at 9:58 am
Thank you Susan. When we found Earth Animal’s rawhide free chews we were happy to have found an alternative to rawhide and bullies. This is very upsetting and scary. Back to plain old, real bones. They can chew outside. Wow. Thank goodness for you. Recently watched Rodney’s podcast on chews but thought I’d use up the Earth Animals first.
Earth Animal
June 16, 2020 at 6:47 pm
Hello Truth About Pet Food Community,
This post claims that the referenced study found that some rawhide-free treats actually contain rawhide. The author of the study, Laurie Martin, took several different brands of dog chews and ‘tested’ them to see if they contained rawhide. Even though no individual treats were named in the results or report, Ms. Susan Thixton, concluded that Earth Animal’s No-Hide® Chew was one of the ‘tested’ products in the study. As a result, Susan Thixton and Laurie Martin are now once again alleging that our product contains rawhide.
We have been through this before.
Ms. Thixton and Ms. Martin have repeatedly tried and failed to prove that Earth Animal’s No-Hide® Chews contains rawhide, and we have repeatedly provided proof to them that it does not. Although they are challenging the integrity of our products and company once again, we are happy to reshare the facts with you, and them. There are several, very thorough, governmental investigations that have all come to the same undisputable conclusion: Earth Animal No-Hide® Chews do not contain rawhide and are not mislabeled. A link to those reports can be found at: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/2178/0324/files/12-31-19_PA_Dept_of_Agriculture_Final_Closure_Letter_-_public.pdf?14041 and https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/2178/0324/files/No-Hide_FDA_REPORT_May2018.pdf?v=1592338891. And, a link to our summary position on the topic “There’s No Hiding the Truth on No-Hide®” can be found at https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/2178/0324/files/No_Hiding_the_Truth_About_No-Hides-2020.pdf?v=1592335546.
We at Earth Animal are taking these allegations very seriously. We have downloaded Ms. Martin’s study and are currently reviewing its content in full alongside this post. We intend to release a more detailed response to share our ‘truth’ on our company, our products and the validity of the study. In the meantime, if anyone has any questions or queries we encourage you to reach out to us directly at customerservice@earthanimal.com .
Since 1979, Earth Animal’s mission has been to preserve and enhance quality of life for animals, people and the Earth. Dr. Bob and Susan Goldstein, our co-founders, created No-Hide® Chews because of their concern about the detrimental attributes of, and conditions in, the animals they were treating that were caused by rawhide products.
We will continue to be open and transparent about our company and the way in which we operate, source, manufacture, and test our products. As fellow pet parents, we share your belief that we all should know and understand the ingredients that make up the products we are giving our animals. Our No-Hide® Chews are made with only 7 ingredients, do not include rawhide, and provide healthy goodness to your animal.
We thank our loyal supporters who believe in Earth Animal and rest assured, we will continue to provide the highest quality and healthy products for your pet.
Regards,
Earth Animal
Susan Thixton
June 17, 2020 at 8:37 am
I would be happy to list the names of any other dog chew with the same ingredients as a potential “Product E” – but I couldn’t find any other product with those ingredients. If you can provide other possible dog chews that list these first five ingredients, please provide them to us. And to be clear, “Ms. Martin” is not affiliated with this website in any manner.
SueEllenB
June 21, 2020 at 12:32 am
Dear Earth Animal,
I find your comment vindictive and inconsistent with your claim that you are transparent.
First, you fail to mention that the primary author of the referenced study was not Laurie Martin, but Adam W. Stern, who is a board-certified veterinary pathologist practicing veterinary medicine as an Associate Professor of Forensic Pathology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Florida. He is a member of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and the International Veterinary Forensics Science Association, and he has qualified multiple times as an expert witness in veterinary medicine and veterinary pathology. (The primary author is always listed first in a scientific paper.) By failing to mention Dr. Stern’s involvement in the research paper, you lead people to believe that the study is a witch-hunt rather than the truth–that the study is peer-reviewed and published by a respected journal (the Journal of Histotechnology).
Next, the reports you cite do not state that No-Hide does not contain rawhide. The cited reports state that results were inconclusive. Inconclusive means that the results are “not capable of ending doubt or dispute/”
Finally, although you claim to be transparent, there is redacted text in the FDA report linked in your comment. I compared your shopify- linked copy of the report to the one posted on this website (see https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/NoHide-FOIA-FDA-EIR_1.pdf). It is apparent that you wish to hide certain information from readers. Most importantly, on page 3, in the section on interstate commerce the waybill number has been blocked from view as has the location from which the chicken gelatin used in the No-Hide chicken was shipped. Using the FDA report on this website, I can see that the air waybill number is 412970595915 and the chicken gelatin reportedly used in No-Hide was shipped from Shanghai, China. I can only conclude that you wish to hide the fact that ingredients of No-Hide are sourced from China.
I began following the dispute about No-Hide when my dog, who is allergic to beef, reacted after I gave him a No-Hide product. None of the labeled ingredients for the chew should have caused the ear infection that showed up 3 days after consuming the chew. This happened after He had been free of ear infections for over a year, and the only dietary change was the No-Hide. Needless to say, my dog no longer is treated with your products.
P.S. For those readers who are challenging Ms. Thixton because she does not publish the referenced study on this website, please understand that articles published by scientific journals are protected by copyright. They cannot be reproduced unless the website pays a fee to the journal. That fee was most likely too costly for Ms. Thixton to pay, and therefore she asks readers to purchase it if they want more information. Someone has to pay the journal
Henry Risor
June 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm
You seem to be alleging some serious malfeasance against these companies without providing any real proof – if you really wanted to be transparent and honest – you would share the study so people can come to their own conclusions without your biased judgments thrown in. It would be very helpful to see how these tests were done and if they they follow proper protocol. Show us the study!
Susan Thixton
June 17, 2020 at 5:00 pm
Hi Henry – it wasn’t my decision for the study to not be available for public view (I’m not affiliated with the study). You can purchase it for $51.00 – which is what I did.
Samantha Casperson
June 18, 2020 at 3:49 pm
I agree, this study seems a bit questionable to me without any more details. I luvs my furry little muffins and I read your website a lot but I try not to believe evyerhing I read online without evidence – just like you teach us! 🙂
Susan Thixton
June 18, 2020 at 4:20 pm
The details are available to you – purchase the study and read it for yourself.
BillNyeismyHero
June 21, 2020 at 2:57 pm
Samantha,
Did you read the study? Because peer reviewed journal articles ARE evidence. If you want details, read the histology report from Pennsylvania, the one Earth Animal recommends everyone read. It’s not like this would be a new finding that rawhide and No Hide look alike when tested with this method.
https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/NoHide-FOIA-PA-State-Histologic-Evaluation.pdf and the Illinois reports https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IllinoisVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratoryNohide.pdf and https://truthaboutpetfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IllinoisVeterinaryDiagnosticLaboratoryRawhide.pdf
Read the “No Hiding the Truth on No Hide” report that Earth Animal linked. EA says that No Hide and rawhide look very different from each other, and that is what the pictures show, but the report EA asks people to read , the Penn report, states they look the same as the Illinois report. Perhaps Earth Animal will give an explanation for why something so “different” looks the same. The Penn report doesn’t have pictures but the IL report does. Here’s a simple test for ya, pry open a No Hide and use iodine on the inner roll in a spot without the flavor coating. Iodine changes color in the presence of starch. This was a fun home-school lesson in my house.
Mufin's Mom
June 19, 2020 at 10:35 am
Maybe the study is behind a paywall because you don’t want people actually looking at the details of how the “study” was conducted. Hard to trust a source that says they are all about transparency and that constantly goes after what they believe to be misleading marketing claims…when you seem to be doing the same thing you allege these companies to do. #misleading #SAD
Susan Thixton
June 19, 2020 at 11:47 am
Actually it is very common for studies to be ‘behind a paywall’. Journals that publish the studies more often than not charge a fee. If you don’t believe what I wrote, why not purchase the study to confirm it for yourself? How can you say I am being “#misleading and #SAD” when you don’t even read the study for yourself?
Mufin's Mom
June 19, 2020 at 3:53 pm
When you claim to be all about transparency and calling brands out for hiding behind claims without proof – its a bit hypocritical. And you seem to be pushing for people to buy the study awfully hard for someone that isn’t affiliated with the study at all….#suspicious
Susan Thixton
June 19, 2020 at 4:53 pm
I guess you have little to no understanding of scientific papers. Ask your vet if he or she can access the paper for you. I find it “#suspicious” that you refuse to read the paper while pointing fingers at me.
Earth Animal
June 24, 2020 at 3:00 pm
To the Truth About Pet Food Community,
Last week we commented on this post, and the allegations made that Earth Animal’s No-Hide Chew® was mis-labeled. We also told you that we have been here before and that Ms. Thixton and Ms. Martin have repeatedly tried and failed to prove that Earth Animal’s No-Hide® Chews contain rawhide, and we have repeatedly provided proof to them that it does not. We then reshared the facts and provided the governmental review and conclusions that prove otherwise with all of you.
As we said last week, we take these allegations very seriously and, as promised, have since purchased the study and reviewed its content in full. Our review was conducted by our own internal Animal Science team and by Dr. Tim Bowser, a Professor from a major University in Oklahoma who advises Earth Animal on our digestibility testing protocols.
After this review we have concluded, among other things, that Ms. Martin and her co-author incorrectly assert that histology – the study of cellular structures under a microscope- is a scientifically acceptable method to verify or dispute labeling claims. This limited viewpoint and methodology does not and cannot provide enough information or data to support the claim made in the report that our product “does not appear consistent with labeling.”
In the study, the conclusion made was that the product identified as No-Hide® was ‘histologically similar’ to some products containing rawhide. The study also stated, however, that “due to the processing involved it was not unexpected that there would be lack of cellular detail that would hinder the ability to definitively identify the origin of some of the components observed.”
Thus, by the study’s own admission, the study was unable, through the use of histology alone, to accurately identify the ingredients in the products. As previously stated, our process has been audited in a much more thorough manner than this study by both state and federal regulators, who have validated that our ingredient label accurately represents the product.
Additionally, we take great care and pride in sourcing ingredients that align with our mission and consistently hold our partner suppliers accountable to meeting those high expectations. Further, quality and food safety are our top priorities. The process of hand rolling our No-Hide® Chews includes a cooking step that has been proven to eradicate harmful bacteria. We continually validate this process through third party testing of No-Hide® batches to verify that our products are safe for your pets and ours.
We at Earth Animal applaud all genuine efforts to increase the levels of transparency and truth in our industry and agree it is needed. Therefore, we ask Truth About Pet Food to consider 2 things:
1. Laurie Martin, one of the co-authors of this study, has been trying and failing to undermine Earth Animal for many years. She has already been served a Cease and Desist Letter by Earth Animal threatening to institute legal proceedings seeking damages for her false statements and accusations. We therefore respectfully ask that, in the future, to ensure while in pursuit of the truth which The Truth About Pet Food seeks, that the editors conduct thorough due diligence on the authors and reporters to which it provides air space; and
2. In the light of the response outlined above, The Truth About Pet Food consider the disconnect between the headline – New Study finds some Rawhide-Free Treats are actually Rawhide, and content of your article and what the report (even if it is bona fide) actually says and make any appropriate adjustments and retractions to ensure the contents are neither untrue nor misleading.
We feel that actions speak louder than words therefore will remain open and transparent about our company and the way in which we operate, source, manufacture, and test our products.
We thank you and are ever grateful for our loyal customers, their continued support and believing in our company and products. And rest assured, our No-Hide® Chews are made with only 7 ingredients, do not include rawhide, and provide healthy goodness to your animal.
As always, if you have any additional questions or concerns, we encourage you to reach out to us any time at customerservice@earthanimal.com.
BillNyeismyHero
June 28, 2020 at 5:51 pm
Earth Animal, Looks like you took a page out of Blue Buffalo’s play book. Purina found that BB was using poultry by product meal when BB said they never use by products in the foods they made. Just as you don’t acknowledge the credentials of Dr. Martin or Dr. Stern, Blue Buffalo did not acknowledge the credentialed expertise of the scientists Purina used. Just as Blue Buffalo called Purina’s microscopy testing methods “voodoo science” you too seem to be disparaging the testing methods.. And just like BB you too embrace transparency and assure your customers your product only contains what you say it does. In the Purina vs Blue Buffalo dispute, it was the man with the microscope that prevailed.
Let’s face it, the paper has been reviewed by experts in histology. If the authors “incorrectly assert” that histology
can be used to evaluate labeling it would not have passed peer review. It is as simple as that. Fact is, many similar papers have been published comparing histology results to labeling.
People, here are the facts. Earth Animal sent No Hide for histopathology It is only now that this paper was published they are suddenly saying it isn’t valid. Seems fishy to me.
If Earth Animal really wanted be transparent I’d think they would post the test results from the government reports.
FDA tested No Hide, sample Number 1020257 “Lab conclusion Results are inconclusive as to whether product contains rawhide or not” If you read the full reports it doesn’t look like either government report “validated that our ingredient label accurately represents the product. “no evidence was found” doesn’t mean their is no evidence, just that they didn’t find it! .
In Feb 2019, Earth Animal wrote. “Pony Express Foods has committed to cease the procurement importation and storage of any rawhide materials….”. However,dog chew imports have continued throughout 2019 and 2020. https://truthaboutpetfood.com/import-records-show-china-remains-leading-pet-food-ingredient-exporter/
And oddly the receipts given to Penn Dept .of Ag documenting sale of the rawhide chews at the weekly flea market were all cash sales, listed no buyers names and were dated for Thursdays when the market they are supposedly sold at is only open on Fridays.
Until the mystery is solved each person can decide for themselves. Pictures are worth a thousand words and Product E looked nothing like all the rest of the starch based rawhide free chews in this report. And that is a fact!
Janet
December 16, 2021 at 10:12 pm
Earth Animal, say what you will, but my dog is DEAD.The 4th anniversary of his death has just recently passed. He only lived 3 years, not nearly long enough. His GI trouble started the day he chewed your “No Hide” rawhide. His GI system was severely injured, and he never fully recovered. After 3 months of heroic efforts to save him, we had to have him euthanized to put him out of his misery. These are irrefutable facts.
Suzanne
June 30, 2020 at 4:41 pm
He’s about theses chews dating back to 2017. Lots of interesting comments! https://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/forums/topic/no-hide-chews/
CHANTALLE CLAVETTE
December 16, 2021 at 12:24 pm
We purchased a puppy August of 2020. I am very careful about the food, treats etc. I feed him. ( or I thought I was.) Over $1200 in vet bills and still no answers were given for the bacteria in his intestines that continually appeared, along with diarrhea, vomiting and being lethargic. ( he had multiple blood panels and fecal test) Not normal for an energetic puppy. We had been dealing with this from 5 months to 15 months. He’s only a year and a half, he shouldn’t be having all these GI issues
The only thing I changed last month was his No-Hide chews after the vets were stumped, saying I need to go to a specialist.
Surprisingly, he’s is back to his bouncy, spunky self.
I think I found my answer…..