Confronting Unfounded Associations of DCM with Grain-Free Pet Food - An Appeal for Uniform Pet Care Advice

In the realm of pet health, as caregivers, it's our responsibility to sift through a deluge of information to make the best decisions for our furry companions. Recently, there's been a contentious discussion spurred by some veterinarians about grain-free pet food, shedding light on discrepancies in veterinary counsel and prompting reflection on professional priorities.

Grain-free pet food has long been championed by many, (myself included), for its perceived advantages, like tackling allergies and enhancing overall well-being. However, some veterinarians have sounded alarms, suggesting a potential correlation between grain-free diets and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an investigation in 2018 to delve into this potential link. Yet, as of now, no definitive causal relationship has been established. The absence of concrete evidence renders the widespread caution against grain-free diets premature and perhaps reactionary.

In stark contrast to this cautious stance on grain-free diets is the apparent wholehearted endorsement of flea and tick insecticides. While effective in preventing diseases transmitted by parasites, these products have a documented track record of triggering severe adverse reactions in pets, including neurological harm and, tragically, fatalities (one of them being my Jack Russell "Joey"). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a multitude of reports detailing such incidents, sparking worries about the safety of these chemical solutions.

This discrepancy is confounding. Why do some veterinarians fervently caution against grain-free diets in the absence of conclusive evidence, yet stand firm in advocating for flea and tick treatments despite documented risks? Such inconsistency not only bewilders pet owners but also erodes trust in veterinary guidance.

One potential explanation lies in the influence of the pet food and pharmaceutical industries. Veterinary practices often maintain partnerships with these sectors, which can shape the recommendations provided to pet owners. Major pet food companies vigorously market grain-inclusive pet foods, while flea and tick treatments serve as significant revenue streams for both manufacturers and veterinary practices.

However, the well-being of our pets should always take precedence. Veterinary advice should be grounded in robust scientific evidence and a balanced evaluation of risks and benefits. The current disparity in perspectives on grain-free diets versus insecticides underscores the necessity for a more uniform and transparent approach.

Pet owners also play a crucial role in advocating for their pets by staying well-informed and questioning recommendations that appear contradictory. Engaging in open dialogues with veterinarians, seeking second opinions, and considering the latest independent research are all vital steps in making informed choices.

Furthermore, regulatory bodies such as the FDA and EPA must continue to meticulously assess both dietary components and insecticidal products, ensuring that their guidance is founded on comprehensive, unbiased research. The veterinary community should rally behind such endeavors, advocating for transparency and evidence-based practices that prioritize pet health over commercial interests.

In conclusion, amidst the ongoing debate surrounding grain-free diets and flea and tick insecticides, one principle remains steadfast: consistency and evidence must serve as the pillars of veterinary guidance. Our pets rely on us to navigate these intricate decisions, and we owe it to them to demand clarity, transparency, and above all, an unwavering commitment to their health and well-being.

Dave Zanoni

Owner, Purrs McBarkin’, LLC

©Purrs McBarkin’, LLC 

According to the lawsuit, which was submitted to a Kansas court on February 6, 2024, and spans 124 pages of damning evidence (posted below), Hill’s Pet Food, the Morris Animal Foundation, the Mark Morris Institute, Dr. Lisa Freeman, Dr. Joshua Stern, Dr. Darcy Adin and others engaged in “a coordinated, for-profit, faux-scientific misinformation campaign by a large corporation” that misled veterinarians and pet owners into believing that grain-free pet foods were harmful and associated with canine heart disease, contrary to the truth.

“Using the tools of professional science and Hill’s vast veterinary influence network, the goal of the scheme was to persuade American pet-owners that grain-free diets weren’t just “fad diets” but actually dangerous for dogs—an argument that, if successful, had the potential to eradicate the entire grain-free sector of the pet food market. They have been carrying out this wide ranging scheme ever since and it has been, by any measure, a breathtaking (if unlawful) success.”

The lawsuit complaint introduces the case with this information:

“Hill’s is unique among these three so-called “traditional” pet food companies for three different reasons. First, it is the smallest of the three—its annual revenues dwarf those of most other pet food brands, but they are only about 20% of Purina’s revenues. Second, as by far the largest maker of “prescription-only” diets in the country and as the self-proclaimed “#1 Vet Recommended Brand,” Hill’s is tied much more closely to the veterinary community than either Mars or Purina. For Mars and Purina, marketing to vets and distributing through vet clinics are both relatively inconsequential parts of their sprawling companies; for Hill’s, they are a major component of the business. “

“The third thing that makes Hill’s unique among the three “traditional” pet food companies is its uniquely poor financial performance in the years leading up to 2018, when the misconduct at the heart of this suit began. During this period, the market for pet foods made by “non-traditional,” often independent, brands was growing explosively. For example, from 2011 to 2017, sales of “grain-free” dog foods, a leading category among independent makers, rose from 15% to 44% of all dog food sales in American pet specialty stores. Purina was so large and diversified that it weathered this storm successfully, growing steadily and preserving its market share from 2014 to 2017. But Hill’s did not. Over the same four-year period, Hill’s annual revenues were pancake-flat and its market share plunged by more than 20%. Long the third-largest seller of complete-diet dog food in the country, Hill’s fell to fourth in 2018, after being overtaken by Blue Buffalo, the largest of the new wave of “non-traditional” pet food brands.”

“Thus, beginning no later than 2018, Hill’s and a cluster of associated entities and individuals (collectively with Hill’s, the “Defendants”) embarked on a drastic and unlawful course to reverse this slide. They carried out a scheme to falsely convince American dog owners that a massive, unrelated, and hugely diverse group of dog food products—essentially any product made by any of the hundreds of independent firms that were collectively eroding Hill’s market share—all increase the risk and severity of a deadly canine heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy (“DCM”).”

“To carry out the scheme, Hill’s, along with a group of closely-bound academic veterinarians (the “Veterinarian Defendants”) and front organizations operating on Hill’s behalf, acted in a coordinated conspiracy.”

“First and most explosively, the Veterinarian Defendants fraudulently induced the United States Food and Drug Administration to launch a high-profile investigation into DCM.”

“The second strand of Defendants’ scheme: Hill’s co-conspirators, the Veterinarian Defendants authored study after study about DCM and then mischaracterized the findings.”

“The Defendants also created and fostered social media environments including at least one Facebook group that was an echo chamber, suppressing any contradiction of the propaganda campaign.”

And then this lawsuit proceeds to provide detail after detail to how the Defendants allegedly fabricated the entire grain-free pet food link to canine heart disease scheme.

Such as “Part One: The Cherry-Picking Scheme
(Defendants Fraudulently Induced the FDA to Launch a High-Profile Investigation into Grain-Free Diets and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy) “

Quoting: “Significantly, 23 of the 28 canine cases in this report, or more than 80%, came from either Dr. Freeman or Dr. Adin. Just five came from sources other than these Defendants, in a nation with 70 million dog owners.”

“Dr. Freeman and Dr. Adin deliberately and intentionally chose an unrepresentative group of cases to show the FDA. They did this by “cherry-picking” DCM cases involving grain free diets and submitting those to the FDA while simultaneously withholding cases involving grain-containing diets.”

The lawsuit included this image of an email from Dr. Freeman to FDA regarding her “protocol” to submit DCM cases to FDA (note the second bullet point under item 2 in image posted below).

The lawsuit goes on to say (emphasis ours): “This means that Dr. Freeman only reported cases of DCM in dogs that were eating products from smaller manufacturers, not from Hill’s or the other two big companies. Dr. Freeman’s own protocol shows that she deliberately selected her sample to create a false link between smaller brands’ products and DCM, regardless of whether they were grain-free or not.”

 The FDA received far fewer reports of DCM cases from 2020 to 2022 compared to the preceding two years. In total, the FDA received 1,382 reports of DCM from Jan. 1, 2014 to Nov. 1, 2022. 

READ MORE