When it comes to pet food, we’ve entered an age of unprecedented innovation, offering companion animals high-quality nutrition crafted with care and precision.
Yet, beneath the surface of this booming industry lies a troubling reality: much of the research that underpins these products remains hidden from the public eye. Most studies are conducted or funded by pet food companies, which often classify findings as proprietary. Adding to the challenge, there’s little to no government funding for independent research in this space.
The Hidden World of Pet Food Research
Recently, pet food research has come under scrutiny. A high-profile example is the 2016 case of Mars Petcare, that faced charges from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over claims about its Eukanuba dog food. Ads stated the food could extend dogs’ lifespans by 30%, based on a decade-long study. However, the FTC concluded there wasn’t sufficient scientific evidence to support the claim.1,2,3
The controversy highlights a larger issue: the study itself was not published,
leaving the public to wonder about its methods and validity.
This situation isn’t unique. Many studies conducted by pet food companies never see the light of day. Even research conducted at universities, often funded by these companies, is frequently locked behind agreements that prevent full transparency.
Contrast this with the human food industry, where researchers and companies can access government grants to fund studies on nutrition and food safety. In pet food, no such public funding exists. The result? A significant gap in shared scientific knowledge about pet nutrition, health, and safety.
Why the Lack of Public Funding?
Several factors contribute to this dearth of research funding. One major reason is scale: the global human food industry generates trillions in sales, dwarfing the $78 billion pet food market. Moreover, governments understandably prioritize research that directly benefits human populations.
There’s also the legal status of pets to consider. In most jurisdictions, pets are still classified as property, which undermines their perceived value in contexts like research funding. This is even though pets are now widely regarded as family members, a sentiment reflected in how owners invest in their care.
Consequences of Limited Shared Research
The lack of publicly available, peer-reviewed pet food research creates a vacuum often filled by myths, misinformation, and activist agendas. Online forums and social media are rife with opinions masquerading as fact, making it difficult for pet owners to discern truth from fiction.
Even published research sometimes raises eyebrows. For example, a recent study by the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition (part of Mars) claimed cats instinctively begin to choose food based on nutrition rather than flavor over time.4 As a cat owner, I found this claim counterintuitive.
The skepticism surrounding such studies underscores the need for more independent, transparent research. Without it, veterinarians and pet food nutritionists must work harder to address consumer questions and dispel misconceptions.
A Possible Path Forward: A Scientific Society for Pet Food
One potential solution lies in creating a nonprofit scientific society dedicated to pet food research similar to the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) for human food.
Such a society could fund and publish peer-reviewed research, supported by membership dues and corporate grants. It could also serve as a hub for collaboration, bringing together researchers, students, and industry professionals to share knowledge and advance the field.
Additionally, fostering this kind of collective effort could encourage the development of more university programs focused on companion animal nutrition. This would not only address the current shortage of academic research but also help cultivate the next generation of experts in pet nutrition and safety.
Rick’s Commentary
While pet food companies invest heavily in research, the lack of transparency undermines trust in their findings. Moving toward a model of open science, where studies are published and subjected to peer review, would benefit everyone: pet owners, veterinarians, researchers, and even the companies themselves.
It’s time to bridge the gap between proprietary research and shared knowledge.
The health and well-being of our pets
- and the trust of the people who care for them –
depend on it.
Further Reading
Mars Petcare Settles False Advertising Charges Related to Its Eukanuba Dog Food. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/mars-petcare-settles-false-advertising-charges-related-its-eukanuba-dog-food
FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Mars Petcare Made False Health Claims for Its Eukanuba Brand Dog Food. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/12/ftc-approves-final-order-settling-charges-mars-petcare-made-false-health-claims-its-eukanuba-brand
The arf-ful truth: That pricey dog food won't extend Fido's life. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eukanuba-mars-petcare-the-arf-ful-truth-pricey-dog-food-wont-extend-fidos-life-ftc-says/
Balancing macronutrient intake in a mammalian carnivore: disentangling the influences of flavour and nutrition. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsos.160081
Comments