top of page
Writer's pictureBesti Vinur Mannsins

Myth no. 2: Only raw food (such as BARF) is contaminated and therefore dangerous

bacteria symbolizing contamination in general

Many critics of raw feeding methods argue that BARF is dangerous because the raw meat contains pathogenic germs. These bacteria would not only be a problem for the raw-fed dog, but above all for the people living with the dog in the same household, especially pregnant women and small children. To support this argument, studies are repeatedly cited that have supposedly proven the danger. But is that true?


Bacterial contamination of raw meat


In 2018, a study on " Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in raw meat-based diets for cats and dogs " was published. A research team from the University of Utrecht had examined 35 raw food rations and found that they were (surprise!) contaminated with bacteria and also contained parasites (in this case, worms). The bottom line of the study: Raw feeding is a danger to dogs and owners, because the bacteria found in the meat are also a source of infections for humans. Several publications in newspapers and internet portals immediately picked up on the study in order to warn of the unbelievable dangers of raw feeding or call loudly for the need of labelling raw products with warnings. Sadly, without reflection and context.


In the above-mentioned study, 35 raw feed samples were examined, with the following results:


study pathogenes in raw food

The study shows – as it was to be expected – that raw meat is not germ free. It sometimes contains bacteria - also pathogenic ones. Of course, these are not without danger. This is also the reason why appropriate kitchen hygiene is generally pointed out (e.g. put cutting boards and knives in the dishwasher after usage, washing hands thoroughly after preparing raw food, do not let children touch the dog bowl etc.) in order to avoid infections in connection with meat processing.


However, these bacteria are not only to be found in the meat that ends up in the dog bowl. We also come into contact with them when we process meat for our human selves. For example, according to a study by German Watch, every second sample of chicken meat from the supermarket was contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Even plant-based products are not free of such bacteria: Here, too, there have been food scandals repeatedly – listeria has been found in lettuce, E.coli bacteria in sprouts and salmonella in hazelnuts – to name just a few examples. This means that pathogens, some of which are dangerous, enter our households in different ways. Of course, we humans usually do not eat the contaminated meat raw (exceptions are, for example, groundmeat, carpaccio or sushi), but fry or boil it, which significantly reduces the bacterial load. The pathogens will though stick to our fingers if we don't wash our hands after processing raw meat.


Since we don't eat the meat for dogs, this source of infection is eliminated by following the sensible rules of kitchen hygiene. Only the dog remains as a source of infection, because it excretes germs with excrements or saliva. And how do they end up in our mouths? Correct, if you don't wash your hands, let them lick your face, etc.


So can it really be concluded from the above-mentioned study that raw feeding in itself poses a risk to humans and animals? No!


Further studies would have to be carried out on this. It would be necessary to investigate how many dogs and dog owners actually become sick because of the pathogens present in meat and to what extent the infection rate differs from non-dog owners. It would then be necessary to investigate how the infection occurs, i.e. through the handling of contaminated meat or because the dog transmits the bacteria directly to its owner. This was not the subject of the study mentioned above, but would be necessary in order to be able to draw conclusions about the actual risks associated with raw feeding/BARF.


Furthermore, there would need to be a comparison of the situation within a control group: What does the bacterial load look like in ready-made food? If dog food is a potential risk for contamination, shouldn't every type of dog food be examined? If the research was actually about gaining knowledge, i.e. finding out whether dog feeding in general can pose a risk to dogs and owners, this would have been done. But it is unfortunately often the case in the veterinary field, that gaining knowledge is not the primary goal (in this case: we already knew that raw meat is not germ-free, right?).


Is ready-made food germ-free?


There was a consumer funded project in 2015 called "The Pet Food Test", in which a total of 12 types of dog and cat food (dry and canned) were analysed under the direction of Dr. Gary Pusillo and Dr. Tsengeg Purejav. It shows why it is also necessary to have a closer look at the risks of ready-made food. Different pathogens were examined than in the study from Utrecht, which is why a direct comparison is not possible.


Nevertheless, it shows that dry and canned food is not completely harmless either - on the contrary. Among other things, the bacterial load of food samples from well-known brands was tested (including Hill´s Pet Food, Frieskies (Purina), Cesar (Mars Pet Care), Beneful (Purina) – the brand´s name is stated first, the manufacturer in follows brackets).


The results: 

study pathogenes in ready-made food

All these pathogens are no less dangerous than the germs found in raw food. In 63% of cases, Acinetobacter, for example, proves to be resistant to antibiotics. Some strains of Pseudomonas, streptococci and staphylococci also exhibit corresponding resistances.


As can be clearly seen, the proportion of contaminated samples in ready-made food is quite high – overall even higher than in raw food.


Accordingly, one has to ask oneself whether feeding with ready-made food is maybe even more dangerous for dog and owner than raw feeding. After all, the owner might touch the food and the dog could also be a source of danger as an excretor. However, warnings such as washing your hands after touching dry food are not to be found on the packaging. For example, how many dog owners carry dry food as a treat in their pockets and give it to their dogs during a walk without washing their hands in between (or afterwards)? This poses a significant risk of infection, because people tend to touch their faces involuntarily. Every sensible person washes his hands after handling raw tripe, meat, innards... Who wants sticky, smelly fingers? Also, there is this general feeling of aversion after touching raw meat etc. Let's be honest: How often do you touch dried meat, for example, and don't wash your hands afterwards? Dry chewing articles or dry food are considered "clean" and pet owners who give ready-made food always feel safe, because after all, the food is heated. However, studies show that these foods also seem to be a breeding ground for pathogens.


Finley, R. et al. (2006): Human Health Implications of Salmonella-Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food and the above mentioned study are clear indications that it would make sense to compare both types of feeding in an independent study and then use risk weighting to make a statement instead of looking at only one type of feeding in an isolated manner.


Side note: The "Pet Food Test" also examined other risk components of ready-made food: All food samples examined contained mycotoxins (fungal toxins). In several cases the nutrient content indicated on the package did not even begin to correspond to what was stated on the package (e.g. massive overdose of calcium, phosphorus).

 

Conclusion


Raw meat as well as dry and canned food contain a whole range of bacteria.


Some of them are pathogenic, so they may pose a danger to humans and animals. The level of risk has not yet been proven, because it has not been investigated whether raw feeders are more likely to become infected with such pathogens than other pet owners or non-pet owners. It's also unclear if dogs infect their owners directly or if that's a rather theoretical risk.


The correct and hygienic handling of the food itself and the dog´s faeces is therefore important at any time - whether you feed raw, dry or canned food.


It is advisable to always wash your hands, clean the used objects such as bowls, knives or cutting boards thoroughly after handling the food. Keep small children away from the dog bowl and - in the case of immunosuppressed people - possibly even wear gloves when preparing the meat.


Surprise: The same applies to the handling of dog excrements 😉


Stigmatization and prejudgment do not help. An open and informed debate should take place and appropriate research should be undertaken.



Sources:

Van Bree, F. P. J. et al. (2017): Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in raw meat-based diets for cats and dogs

Finley, R. et al. (2006): Human Health Implications of Salmonella-Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food

Comments


bottom of page