DNA and Protein Analyses to Confirm the Absence of Cross-Contamination and Support the Clinical Reliability of Extensively Hydrolysed Diets for Adverse Food Reaction-Pets

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.

The usefulness of a hydrolysed fish and rice starch elimination diet for the diagnosis of adverse food reactions in cats: an open clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR) is based on an eight week elimination diet (ED) and is confirmed by relapse upon re-challenge with the previously fed diet. Hydrolysed EDs are commonly used for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the commercially available hydrolysed fish protein and rice starch ED Farmina UltraHypo (FUH) for the diagnosis of feline AFR.

ANIMALS

Thirty-two nonseasonally pruritic cats.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Pruritus was assessed with a new dual Visual Analog Scale, lesions with the Scoring Feline Allergic Dermatitis scale and Quality of Life with a validated questionnaire on days 0 and 56. Short-acting corticosteroids or oclacitinib were permitted during the first six weeks. Cats showing 50% pruritus and/or lesional improvement were separately challenged with their prior diet, fish and rice. Cats not responding to the study diet were fed another hydrolysed diet for two months.

RESULTS

Twenty-five cats completed the ED: four dropped out due to vomiting and/or diarrhoea, one owing to low palatability and two were lost to follow-up. In 17 cats, pruritus improved by >50% and these underwent dietary challenges. Of these, nine reacted to their prior diet and/or fish and/or rice and were diagnosed with AFR, while eight did not relapse (and a diagnosis of AFR was considered to be doubtful). Of the eight cats in which pruritus did not improve, four underwent a second ED with no improvement.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

FUH may be a useful ED for the diagnosis of feline AFR, even in cats reacting to fish or rice.

Detection of DNA from undeclared animal species in commercial canine and feline raw meat diets using qPCR

The best diagnostic test for cutaneous adverse food reactions (CAFR) in companion animals is an elimination diet and subsequent provocation trials. Many commercial diets contain novel protein ingredients used in elimination diets, and selection is based on label ingredients. Raw meat-based diets (RMBD) have become increasingly commercially available, gaining popularity despite potential health risks. Reliability of RMBD based on label ingredients has not been investigated. Using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), 9 canine and 9 feline commercial RMBD were assessed for reliability of species-specific animal DNA. Two separate batches of each diet were assessed for content consistency. The DNA of 1 or more unlisted animal species was identified in > 60% of diets, as was discrepancy between batches. The unlisted DNA most frequently detected was lamb in canine diets and turkey in feline diets. Based on these findings, use of commercially available RMBD cannot be recommended as an elimination diet in clinical diagnosis of CAFR.