top of page
Search

“No fillers.” “No nasties.” “Grain free.” “No artificial ingredients.” And now, “no buckwheat.

Writer: veterinaryvoicesuk
veterinaryvoicesuk
3 minutes ago
4 min read

Pet nutrition is an area where marketing can easily become confused with evidence.


This is not a discussion for or against any particular feeding style, different approaches have advantages and limitations, and individual animals have different nutritional and medical requirements.


But there is a problem with marketing a food primarily by vilifying and attacking ingredients used in somebody else's food.


Terms such as “fillers” and “nasties” have no meaningful role in assessing whether a complete diet is nutritionally appropriate. Similarly, the absence, or presence, of an ingredient does not automatically make a food healthier or safer.


The current Years recall provides an important example of why we need to be careful about this.


Years has voluntarily recalled its Fresh Meals, excluding the Chef's Collection, while reports of sudden bilateral dry eye in dogs are investigated. At present, a causal relationship has not been established. Years has stated that its investigation is focused on potential contamination within a portion of its buckwheat supply, rather than buckwheat itself, and that a definitive cause has not yet been identified.


Despite this, “buckwheat-free” is already appearing as a selling point for alternative foods.

There is another important issue that receives considerably less attention in pet-food advertising: how extensively has the finished food actually been evaluated?


A diet can be formulated to meet recognised nutritional guidelines without necessarily undergoing feeding trials in the population for which it will ultimately be sold.


Nutritional formulation can tell us whether a recipe is calculated or analysed to provide appropriate concentrations of essential nutrients.


But there is a difference between a formulation looking appropriate on paper and understanding how the finished product performs when it is actually eaten by a wider population. 


Feeding trials can provide additional information about factors such as acceptance, digestibility, energy utilisation and the response of animals to the finished diet.


Ingredient lists are visible and can be manipulated to look more appealing, which makes them incredibly powerful marketing tools.


An unfamiliar or chemical-sounding additive is not automatically harmful. Feed additives used in the UK are subject to regulatory requirements and authorisation.


Likewise, a list containing recognisable meats, vegetables and ingredients we might have in our own kitchens does not automatically demonstrate that the finished food is nutritionally superior.


Assessing a pet food requires looking beyond its ingredient list and marketing claims.


Important considerations include whether the diet is complete and balanced for the appropriate life stage, its caloric density, how its nutritional adequacy has been established, who formulated it and their qualifications, the manufacturer's quality-control processes, and what research has been conducted on the finished product. Crucially, there is a distinction between a food formulated to meet specified nutrient levels and one evaluated through animal feeding trials. Formulation alone does not demonstrate how a finished food performs when fed, although feeding trials themselves cannot guarantee nutritional adequacy under every circumstance. Terms such as “premium”, “holistic” or “human grade”, and an appealing ingredient list, should therefore not be used as substitutes for objective nutritional assessment. 


These considerations and questions apply to all feeding styles. 


There are legitimate discussions to have about formulation, evidence, processing, contamination, nutritional adequacy, bacterial contamination, public health risk, antimicrobial resistance risk, quality control and the advantages and limitations of different feeding approaches.


Those conversations become much harder when marketing reduces nutrition to:

Ingredient present = bad. Ingredient absent = good.


The current investigation should not become an opportunity to create another ingredient for owners to fear.


Thank you to Menniti Veterinary Nutrition for helping with some of the references in the article.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page