Study of the chemical and nutritional characteristics of commercial dog foods used as elimination diet for the diagnosis of canine food allergy

Qualitative and quantitative detection of chicken deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in dry dog foods

Chicken is a common protein source in pet foods and is concurrently listed among food allergens. Commercial over-the-counter (OTC) diets with an alternative animal protein source are considered suitable for dietary elimination trials by pet owners. The potential presence of undeclared chicken-derived ingredients in these diets can compromise the outcome of the trial during the diagnosis of adverse food reactions. The aim of this study was to selectively verify the absence or presence of chicken DNA in 10 OTC dry canine foods, using qualitative and quantitative approaches. The method of identification of chicken-derived protein was elaborated with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, whereas quantitative real-time PCR was used for the quantitative assessment. In most of the analysed samples, the chicken DNA was detectable; however, the quantified amounts were predominantly low, although differences between batches were observed.

Detection of undeclared animal by-products in commercial canine canned foods: Comparative analyses by ELISA and PCR-RFLP coupled with slab gel electrophoresis or capillary gel electrophoresis

BACKGROUND

The potential presence of undeclared animal by-products in pet foods is not subject to routine examination. Previously published methods for species-based identification of animal by-products have not been used routinely owing to inconsistent results. The present study evaluated the utility of several approaches for accurate identification of animal by-products in 11 commercial brands of canine canned foods.

RESULTS

Canine canned foods from several countries were analysed by ELISA, PCR-RFLP coupled with slab-gel electrophoresis (SGE) and capillary gel electrophoresis (CGE) to test for evidence of by-products derived from cattle, chicken, sheep or pig. While CGE-based analysis detected all (24) animal-derived by-products that were reported for the 11 test samples, SGE and ELISA detected only 22/24 (92%) and 14/24 (58%) of labelled by-products, respectively. In addition, undeclared animal by-products were found using all three analytical approaches with CGE detecting more positives (19) than SGE (17) or ELISA (5).

CONCLUSION

Significant disparities were evident between the labelled contents and the detected content of animal by-products. CGE-based testing for PCR products appears to provide greater sensitivity and accuracy than either SGE or ELISA-based methods. As testing of commercial products becomes more reliable and mainstream, manufacturers will need to develop more thorough and accurate labelling protocols.

Identification of undeclared sources of animal origin in canine dry foods used in dietary elimination trials

Failure to respond to commercial limited antigen diets can occur in dogs kept on a dietary trial for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR). The aim of this study was to assess twelve canine dry limited antigen diets (eleven novel protein diets and one hydrolysed diet) for potential contamination by ingredients of animal origin not mentioned on the label. The validity of the two methods adopted for the detection of such food antigens was also evaluated. Each dietary product was analysed by microscopy analysis using the official method described in Commission Regulation EC 152/2009 with the aim of identifying bone fragments of different zoological classes (mammalian, avian and fish) and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the identification of DNA of animal origin. Discrepancies between the results obtained by PCR and/or microscopy analysis and the ingredients listed on pet food packages were found. Only in two pet foods did the results of both analyses match the ingredients listed on the label. In the remaining ten samples, microscopy detected bone fragments from one or two unpredicted zoological classes, revealing avian fragments in six of ten samples followed by those of fish in five of ten and mammalian fragments in four of ten. In two samples, microscopy analysis identified a contamination that would have otherwise passed unobserved if only PCR had been used. However, PCR confirmed the presence of all the zoological classes detected by microscopy and also identified the DNA of an additional unexpected zoological class in two samples. Dogs might fail to respond to commercial limited antigen diets because such diets are contaminated with potential allergens. Both PCR and microscopy analysis are required to guarantee the absence of undeclared animal sources in pet foods. Before ruling out AFR, a novel protein home-made diet should be considered if the dog is unresponsive to a commercial regimen.