Our top raw feeding myths, debunked.

“Raw fed pets shed salmonella and will make your kids sick if they lick them!”

Bacterial contamination is the top dog of anti-raw feeding rhetoric, but it’s not entirely fair to call this one a myth; the reality is more nuanced than that.

There is a risk of bacterial contamination when feeding a raw diet, this is not a myth. But when we say dogs “shed” salmonella, it’s not just dropping off them as they walk around your house. They shed it in their poo. And it’s not just raw fed dogs; all dogs can carry and shed salmonella in their gut, regardless of what they eat. It’s also important to remember that not all salmonella is pathogenic; there are over 2500 subtypes of salmonella, but only around 50 that can make humans unwell – and very few recorded cases of that actually happening.

Of course, we humans also cook our food, so this naturally mitigates a lot of the bacterial risk. But we do this because we have very different digestive systems to dogs and cats, who are biologically designed to eat raw food – specifically meat. While we have long digestive tracts that provide ideal conditions for bad bacteria to thrive and multiply, dogs and cats have short, efficient digestive systems with stomach acid up to 100x stronger than ours, and anti-bacterial defences that start in their mouth.

It’s also important to remember that there is an established risk associated with feeding processed pet food, which has been documented in the many recalls (globally) of dry pet food due to bacterial contamination.

So, this isn’t a simple matter of risk vs no risk. It’s a nuanced situation where we must weigh up our personal risk, which will be different for everyone, and the many benefits of feeding a raw diet. Just as you would when preparing your own food, we always recommend that you practice safe food handling for your pets and source your meat from a reputable supplier using ingredients from the human supply chain (like us!).

“Source?? There’s no actual evidence to support the anecdotal benefits of raw feeding”

We covered this pretty thoroughly in our previous article on the evidence-based benefits of a raw diet, but let’s recap why this claim of “no evidence” is outdated, at best. While it’s true that for a long time the “evidence” was thousands of people in Facebook groups recounting their stories of complete transformation after making the switch to raw food, those days are behind us.

In recent years there has been robust research into the positive impact fresh food has on the gut microbiome of pets, in particular with respect to increased microbiome diversity, improvements to protein and fat utilisation, digestive motility, nutrient absorption, weight management and stool quality. We have also seen research on the positive impact fresh food has on the skin microbiome of our pets, and there is plenty of evidence to say that nutrients from minimally processed food are better utilised than those from heavily processed and supplemented food.

“Bones are a choking hazard, you’ll regret it”

Bones are a close second to bacteria in terms of the things we should be wary of, but again this myth comes with some major caveats.

There are indeed some bones that are not safe to feed, most notably cooked bones. These become dry, hard and brittle in the cooking process, making them hard to digest and more prone to splintering or becoming blocked in the digestive system.

Raw bones, on the other hand, are actually quite soft and spongey by comparison, and no match for the powerful digestive juices of dogs and cats. Bones are a great way to preserve your pet’s dental health, as the crunching, gnawing and ripping motions act like nature’s toothbrush.

Given that around 80% of adult dogs have periodontal disease, which can lead to major health problems throughout the entire body, the risk of bones isn’t the only one we need to consider – dental disease comes with its own major risks.

The exception here are weight bearing bones (ie. legs) from very large animals, like cows, as these tend to be extremely hard and can result in chipped teeth. The key is to select the right kind of bone for your pet’s size and chewing style.

So yes, bones are a choking hazard in the same way all food is a choking hazard if you don’t do it safely. The benefits of feeding raw meaty bones are significant, and far from inherently dangerous.

“Dogs have actually evolved to eat differently, your dog isn’t a wolf lol”

Look, we’re not going to argue that dogs are wolves; they’re literally a different species of animal and this isn’t what people mean when they make the comparison in a nutrition context.

What people mean is that the digestive system of dogs and wolves is extremely similar and, given that we know dogs evolved from grey wolves and share over 99% of their DNA, this indicates that the ancestral diet of dogs is closest to the natural diet of wolves, which is predominantly raw meat, organs, bones and other delicious snacks like fur and feathers.

But dogs have evolved to be different to wolves; they’re different sizes and shapes, they have bigger eyes and floppy ears, and they can digest starches better than wolves. And this last one is doing some serious heavy lifting when it comes to the dogs vs wolves nutrition debate.

The key difference here is that, upon domestication, dogs experienced an increase in the production of pancreatic amylase, which is a digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starches. This evolutionary development likely occurred to enable dogs to survive on a more “human” diet and is the reason dogs are often classified as omnivores, whereas wolves are widely considered carnivores. However, dogs still don’t produce salivary amylase like other omnivores eating a high starch diet, and the increase in amylase production varies significantly between individual dogs.

The thing to consider here is whether we are aiming for survival, or whether we want the best possible nutrition for our pets. Can dogs digest starch better than wolves? Sure. But does this mean they are designed to eat heavily refined grains as upwards of 50% of their diet? Unlikely. It just means they can obtain the nutrients in a small amount of suitable plant matter, and aren’t likely to refuse such food and starve, like most cats would.

“Vets only hate raw feeding because they get kickback$ from Big PetÒ”

One of the most pervasive myths around raw feeding is that vets demonise it because they’re paid off by the big, processed pet food companies. This is, at face value, not true. There is undoubtedly a lot of money from “Big Pet Food” in the veterinary industry and many vets are not raw feeding advocates, but it’s not a simple case of vets being paid to promote bad food.

In reality, vets are taught about things like intestinal blockages and bacterial contamination, as well as the long-term impact of feeding an unbalanced homemade diet. And these are the clients they see in their offices. Understandably, their clinical experience and formal education is likely to impact the views and advice they form around diet. At the end of the day, most vets aren’t nutritionists, so it isn’t their job to know everything about every different approach to feeding our pets or interrogate the long-term impact of a particular food.

There are also many vets who do love a fresh food diet, so it’s just a matter of finding someone who aligns with your approach to caring for your pets and will support you on your fresh feeding journey.

Written by Clare Kearney

Pet nutritionist and founder of Hunde.

Do you have any other myths you want us to tackle? Email your question to [email protected]