Determination of mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercial vegetarian and vegan diets for dogs and cats

Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a year

Domestic dogs can maintain health on complete and well-balanced canine plant-based nutrition (K9PBN). Novel insight on health outcomes in dogs consuming K9PBN is of relevance to veterinary professionals and consumers given a growing interest in non-traditional dog foods with perceived health benefits, while considering potential safety concerns. We aimed to investigate nutritional equivalence by measuring clinical health outcomes in adult dogs fed K9PBN over twelve months compared to a meat-based diet at baseline. We enrolled fifteen clinically healthy adult dogs living in households in Los Angeles County, California in a prospective cohort study and evaluated clinical, hematological, and nutritional parameters in dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months, including complete blood count (CBC), blood chemistry, cardiac biomarkers, plasma amino acids, and serum vitamin concentrations. The study found that clinically healthy, client-owned, adult dogs maintain health, based on physical exams, complete blood count, serum chemistry, plasma amino acids, serum vitamins, and cardiac biomarkers combined with client-reported observations, when fed commercial K9PBN over a twelve-month period. This study is the most comprehensive and longest known K9PBN investigation to date and provides clinically relevant evidence-based nutrition data and new knowledge on outcomes in clinically healthy dogs who thrive without consumption of animal-derived ingredients. These results also provide a valuable foundation for the future study of K9PBN as a potential nutritional intervention for clinically relevant pathologies in canine medicine. Lastly, it is of major relevance to One Health paradigms since ingredients produced independent of industrial food animal production are both more sustainable and help to circumvent ethical dilemmas for maintenance of health in domestic dogs.

2023 AAHA Management of Allergic Skin Diseases in Dogs and Cats Guidelines

These guidelines present a systematic approach to diagnosis, treatment, and management of allergic skin diseases in dogs and cats. The guidelines describe detailed diagnosis and treatment plans for flea allergy, food allergy, and atopy in dogs and for flea allergy, food allergy, and feline atopic skin syndrome in cats. Management of the allergic patient entails a multimodal approach with frequent and ongoing communication with the client. Obtaining a comprehensive history is crucial for diagnosis and treatment of allergic skin diseases, and the guidelines describe key questions to ask when presented with allergic canine and feline patients. Once a detailed history is obtained, a physical examination should be performed, a minimum dermatologic database collected, and treatment for secondary infection, ectoparasites, and pruritus (where indicated) initiated. The process of diagnosing and managing allergic skin disease can be prolonged and frustrating for clients. The guidelines offer recommendations and tips for client communication and when referral to a dermatologist should be considered, to improve client satisfaction and optimize patient outcomes.

Commercial vs Homemade Cat Diets: What you need to know

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

A feeding plan recommendation for cats, both healthy and with disease, should include diet choice, amounts to feed and the feeding method. Diet choice can be complex owing to the abundance of products, sometimes with conflicting marketing messages, and the prevalence of information with no scientific basis. It is important to be aware of the specific challenges of both commercial and homemade diets. Moreover, a nutritional assessment is a prerequisite when recommending a diet to ensure that it is safe, appropriate for the cat's life stage and nutritious for long-term feeding.

COMMERCIAL VS HOMEMADE DIETS

There are a variety of commercial diets available, allowing considerable customisation. These products are regulated and can be tested to determine nutritional adequacy and safety, although as the industry is partly self-regulated, choice of manufacturer is important. Properly formulated homemade diets can be customised to the patient and are a good option when no commercial product that meets the patient's needs exists. Homemade diets can be an owner preference. A serious limitation is the lack of testing, potentially affecting safety and also resulting in a reliance on database information to determine nutritional adequacy. Generic homemade diet recipes (eg, sourced from the internet) have additional risks of deficiencies and imbalances, and are not recommended. Homemade diets should be devised by a veterinary nutrition specialist with consideration of both patient and owner factors.

CLINICAL CHALLENGES

Dietary misinformation, which is all too readily available on the internet, may result in owners making questionable feeding choices for their pets. A homemade diet may be requested by owners based on the perception that there are poor ingredients in commercial foods. The veterinary healthcare team needs to have good evidence-based information to present to owners about diet choice.

EVIDENCE BASE

Several decades of research on feline nutrition forms the basis for nutritional requirements and dietary recommendations. There are varying degrees of evidence regarding requirements for each nutrient, and a lack of data on the effects of different types of processing on nutrient needs.

Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods

BACKGROUND

These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels.

RESULTS

Eleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label-chicken protein-and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity.

Determination of Mammalian Deoxyribonucleic Acid in Commercial Canine Treats and Supplements

Feeding an elimination diet exclusively is currently the only accurate diagnostic test for an adverse food reaction in dogs and cats. However, owner compliance has been identified as a challenge, and the inability to limit exposure to other items (including treats and supplements) is a remarkable reason for failure. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the presence of declared and undeclared mammalian deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in commercially available canine treats and supplements using polymerase chain reaction methodology. Eight treat products and 20 supplement products were analyzed for the DNA of 10 mammalian species (bison, cat, cow, dog, goat, horse, mouse, rat, pig, and sheep). The results showed that 88% (7/8) of treats and 40% (8/20) of supplements were found to contain at least one source of undeclared mammalian DNA. Undeclared pig and cow DNA were the most frequently identified, and there were only two instances of negative results for declared species. Because of the frequent finding of undeclared mammalian DNA in the assessed products, avoiding using treats and supplements during elimination trials is recommended.

Determination of mammalian DNA in commercial canine diets with uncommon and limited ingredients

Over‐the‐counter (OTC) limited ingredient canine diets could be reliable alternatives to veterinary therapeutic formulations for the diagnosis and management of adverse food reaction (AFR). However, the possibility of undeclared ingredients jeopardizes the efficacious use of OTC options for medical purposes. The objective was to determine the presence of undeclared ingredients in OTC canine dry diets marketed as limited or single protein source diets. Twenty‐one OTC adult canine diets marketed as limited or single protein source diets were purchased. Multiplex PCR was used to screen for DNA of 10 mammalian species with species‐specific primers that anneal to regions of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. The presence of DNA from one or more species not declared on the label was identified in all 21 diets: cow (Bos taurus), pig (Sus scrofa), sheep (Ovis sp.), goat (Capra hircus) and bison (Bison bison). Twenty diets were positive for the declared protein source and one diet was negative for the declared species. Cat (Felis catus), dog (Canis sp.), horse (Equus sp.), mouse (Mus musculus) and rat (Rattus norvegicus) DNA was not identified in any samples. The presence of undeclared mammal species in OTC canine dry diets marketed as having limited or single protein source ingredients may complicate AFR diagnosis and treatment. However, PCR can detect a miniscule amount of DNA which might not be clinically significant, because the amount needed to elicit a response is unknown. Quantification of the contamination was not determined in this study, precluding discrimination of intentional adulteration from unavoidable cross‐contamination.

Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets

Background

Adverse food reactions (AFRs) are defined as abnormal responses to an ingested food or food additive. Diagnosis and treatment of AFRs consist of the complete elimination of these ingredients in the dietary trial. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of undeclared ingredients in commercial limited-antigen dry food diets that can compromise the results and efficacy of dietary elimination trails. The aim of this study was to assess a selection of commercial canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods for the potential cross-contamination of animal proteins from origins not mentioned on the label.

Results

Eleven canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet foods (9 novel animal protein foods, 1 vegetarian and 1 hydrolyzed) were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence DNA of animal and vegetal origins. PCR analysis confirmed the contamination of 6 of the 11 (54.5%) limited-antigen wet diets with undeclared animal protein. One of these 6 diets was solely composed of animal protein sources completely unrelated to those declared on the label. None of the foods containing horse meat or fish were contaminated, and neither were the vegetarian or the hydrolyzed food products. Moreover, the results show that had zoological class primers only been used to check for cross-class contaminations, as are generally used in the pet food industry for in-house checks, the apparent contamination rate would have been significantly underestimated: less than 20% (3/11), instead of the actual rate of 54.7% using species-specific primers.

Conclusion

This study reveals a high rate of cross-contamination in dietetic limited-antigen wet canine and feline foods, as previously described for dietetic dry limited-antigen foods (reported to be more than 80%). These results add new fuel to the discussion about the potential causes underlying the failure of elimination diets, since animal protein contaminants may actually be present in the commercial dietetic limited-antigen diets. AFRs may therefore occur as a result of inadequate practices in the pet food industry.

PCR analysis of a prescription vegetarian diet and use in three dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) is diagnosed by performing an elimination diet trial utilizing prescription or home-cooked diets followed by provocative challenge.

OBJECTIVES

To report findings of PCR analysis of a prescription vegetarian diet (RCV) for undeclared proteins of animal origin, as well as to describe its utilization for diagnosis and management of dogs suspected of having CAFR.

ANIMALS

Three client-owned dogs.

METHODS

PCR analysis of RCV for 11 mammalian species and poultry. In three dogs, clinical examination, cytology, aerobic culture (if indicated) and at least one elimination diet trial with RCV.

RESULTS

In our case series, all dogs had a history of pruritus and recurrent pyoderma that resolved with infection control and an elimination diet trial. In cases 1 and 2, a diagnosis of CAFR was made following an elimination trial with RCV and provocative challenge. Case 3 had a previously confirmed diagnosis of CAFR and RCV was successfully used to maintain remission of CAFR-related signs. PCR testing of RCV was negative for 11 mammalian species and poultry.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

The RCV diet was found not to contain any undeclared mammalian or avian proteins. In this case series, the RCV was successfully used to diagnose and maintain three dogs with CAFR.

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (5): discrepancies between ingredients and labeling in commercial pet foods

Background

Elimination dietary trials for the diagnosis of adverse food reactions (food allergies) in dogs and cats are often conducted with commercial pet foods while relying on their label to select those not containing previously-eaten ingredients. There are concerns that industrial pet foods might contain unlisted food sources that could negate the usefulness of performing food trials. Furthermore, unidentified ingredients might cause clinical reactions in patients hypersensitive to such items.

Results

We searched two article databases on July 7, 2017 and January 12, 2018 for relevant articles, and we screened abstracts from the leading international veterinary dermatology congresses for suitable material. Additional citations were found in the selected papers. In all, we extracted data from 17 articles and one abstract. The studies varied both in the number of pet foods tested (median: 15; range: 1 to 210) and that of ingredients specifically evaluated (median: 4; range: 1 to 11). Studies most often employed either PCR to detect DNA or ELISA to identify proteins from one or more vegetal or animal species; two studies used mass spectrometry to increase the number of detectable proteins. The various methods found ingredients that were not on the label in 0 to 83% (median: 45%) of tested diets; this percentage varied between 33 and 83% in pet foods with “novel/limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Similarly, ingredients were found to be missing from the label in 0 to 38% (median: 1%) of tested foods. Finally, six studies evaluated, among others, several hydrolysate-containing pet foods: mislabeling with unlabeled or missing ingredients was found only in one diet.

Conclusions

The mislabeling of pet foods appears rather common, even in those with “novel” or “limited” ingredients proposed for elimination diets. Unexpected added ingredients are more frequently detected than those missing from the label. There is insufficient information to determine if the presence of a contaminating component will lead to a clinical reaction in a patient allergic to it, as challenges with the mislabeled foods were not performed in dogs or cats allergic to such ingredients. The testing of hydrolysate-containing pet foods found only one instance of possible mislabeling.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1346-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.