126 E Carolina Ave Hartsville, SC 29550 OPEN TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY 10AM - 6PM
Editorial
At Purrs McBarkin’, I’m dedicated to providing the best for your furry family members.
Every product I offer is carefully selected with a focus on high-quality ingredients and the integrity of the manufacturers. My mission goes beyond selling products—it's about empowering pet owners with the knowledge to make informed decisions for their pets’ health and happiness.
Grain-Free Diets, Flea & Tick Treatments, and the Need for Transparency
As pet owners, we strive to keep our pets healthy, but navigating conflicting advice in the pet care industry can be challenging. Topics like grain-free diets, flea and tick treatments, and broader industry practices raise important questions about transparency and evidence-based care.
Grain-Free Diets and DCM: What We Know
Grain-free diets have gained popularity for their potential to help with allergies and overall health. However, in 2018, the FDA began investigating a possible link between grain-free diets and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs, largely driven by reports from veterinarians connected to major pet food manufacturers. Despite years of research, the FDA has not found conclusive evidence that grain-free diets cause DCM. By December 2022, the agency announced it would no longer provide routine updates on the matter, reinforcing the uncertainty of these claims.
Despite this, corporate-backed veterinary groups continue to push grain-inclusive diets while downplaying other contributing factors, such as genetics, taurine levels, and overall formulation quality. Pet owners deserve transparency, and independent research is key to making informed choices—something large corporations often fail to prioritize.
Flea and Tick Treatments: A Cause for Concern
While grain-free diets face scrutiny, flea and tick treatments with documented risks continue to be widely used and recommended. These treatments protect pets from parasites but have been associated with significant adverse reactions.
As of April 2021, the FDA and EPA received the following reports regarding adverse reactions and deaths linked to commonly used flea and tick treatments:
Bravecto (fluralaner) – 43,602 adverse reactions, including 1,533 deaths
Nexgard (afoxolaner) – 36,340 adverse reactions, including 1,086 deaths
Simparica (sarolaner) – 14,153 adverse reactions, including 432 deaths
Comfortis (spinosad) – 162,354 adverse reactions, including 4,816 deaths
Trifexis (spinosad + milbemycin oxime) – 200,941 adverse reactions, including 6,662 deaths
These figures, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), reveal serious safety concerns about these treatments. Tragically, I experienced this firsthand with my own dog, Joey, who lost his life due to complications from a flea treatment.
Why the Contradictions?
This contrast raises an important question: Why do grain-free diets face such scrutiny despite inconclusive evidence, while flea and tick treatments with well-documented risks are still widely recommended?
One explanation may be the influence of marketing and partnerships between major pet food manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and veterinary practices. While this doesn’t necessarily indicate ill intent, it highlights the need for transparency and evidence-based recommendations that prioritize pet health over corporate interests.
Lawsuit Against Hill’s Pet Nutrition
In February 2024, KetoNatural Pet Foods filed a $2.6 billion class-action lawsuit against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, alleging that Hill’s and certain veterinarians spread misinformation linking grain-free diets to DCM. The lawsuit claims this misinformation spurred the FDA’s investigation, harming the grain-free pet food market. Hill’s denies these allegations, stating that the claims are without merit.
This lawsuit underscores the complexities of the pet care industry and the importance of integrity and accountability when addressing pet health concerns.
What You Can Do as a Pet Owner
To advocate for your pet’s health, consider the following:
-Stay informed by researching pet food and treatment options using independent, reputable sources.
-Ask questions and have open discussions with your veterinarian about their recommendations.
-Seek second opinions if you’re uncertain about advice.
-Review available data critically to make decisions that align with your values.
Advocating for Transparency and Evidence-Based Care
Our pets rely on us to make choices that impact their health and happiness. To honor that responsibility, we must demand clarity and accountability from the pet care industry. By staying informed and prioritizing evidence-based care, we can ensure our pets receive the thoughtful, compassionate treatment they deserve.
Thank you for trusting me to be part of your journey as a pet owner.
Trademark and Legal Disclaimer
All product names, logos, and brands mentioned are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Use of these trademarks does not imply any affiliation or endorsement by the trademark holders.
The information provided here is based on publicly available data from reputable sources, including the FDA, EPA, and FOIA reports. It reflects the opinions of Purrs McBarkin’, LLC and is for educational purposes only.
This content does not constitute legal, medical, or professional advice. Always consult your trusted veterinarian for personalized guidance.
Dave Zanoni
Owner, Purrs McBarkin’, LLC
©Purrs McBarkin’, LLC
Lawyer analyzed US$2.6 billion DCM lawsuit against Hill’s Pet Nutrition
The lawsuit alleged that Hill’s and a group of veterinarians worked together to manipulate the FDA into examining the possibility that certain grain-free dog foods increased pets’ risk for the potentially deadly heart disease, dilated cardiomyopathy.
FDA ends DCM updates; No causality data with dog foods
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.
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA), while widely regarded as a global leader in establishing veterinary care standards, has faced criticism over its close ties with some of the largest pet food corporations in the industry, including Mars Petcare (makers of Royal Canin), Nestlé Purina, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition (a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive). These corporations sponsor WSAVA events, contribute funding, and are involved in educational and research initiatives endorsed by WSAVA. This financial support has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as these companies also produce and promote diets that align closely with WSAVA’s nutritional recommendations.
Concerns Over Guidelines and Recommendations
WSAVA’s guidelines recommend diets that have undergone AAFCO feeding trials, which, while widely accepted, have limitations. These trials are relatively short-term and may not fully reflect an animal’s nutritional needs over its lifetime. Furthermore, AAFCO trials do not always require comprehensive biochemical analysis, potentially overlooking nutrient imbalances that could impact long-term health.
WSAVA also emphasizes consulting board-certified veterinary nutritionists for dietary planning and management. However, many of these specialists have affiliations with the same corporations that fund WSAVA, through employment, research funding, or industry partnerships. This overlap raises questions about the objectivity of recommendations, as these nutritionists often suggest diets from these corporations due to their familiarity with these brands.
Alternative Feeding Methods and Objectivity
WSAVA guidelines tend to discourage alternative feeding methods, such as home-prepared or raw diets, citing concerns about balance and safety. While these concerns are valid in some cases, critics argue that WSAVA’s recommendations heavily favor processed commercial diets from its corporate sponsors. This approach can narrow the scope of advice provided to pet owners, despite growing interest in alternative feeding practices.
Unlike organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), which provide rigorously evidence-based guidelines with detailed citations, WSAVA’s guidelines often rely on expert consensus. Although expertise is valuable, the lack of extensive independent research citations makes it challenging for veterinarians and pet owners to evaluate the scientific basis behind these recommendations. This reliance on consensus has led some to question the transparency and scientific rigor of WSAVA’s guidelines.
Questions About Corporate Influence
For pet owners and veterinarians seeking balanced and objective guidance, the strong presence of corporate influence in WSAVA’s funding and educational materials raises valid concerns about whether the guidelines prioritize pet health or inadvertently serve the interests of industry sponsors. While WSAVA’s guidelines provide a framework for pet nutrition, ongoing debate persists about their impartiality and whether they present the most comprehensive perspective on pet care.
Trademark and Legal Disclaimer
All product names, logos, and brands mentioned are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Use of these trademarks does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by the trademark holders. The information provided here reflects the opinions of Purrs McBarkin’, LLC and is based on publicly available data for educational purposes only.
This content does not constitute legal, medical, or professional advice. Always consult a trusted veterinarian for personalized recommendations regarding your pet’s health and diet.
Dave Zanoni
Owner, Purrs McBarkin’, LLC
©Purrs McBarkin’, LLC
Fact Sheet for Pet Owners and Veterinarians about Potential Adverse Events Associated with Isoxazoli
The FDA is alerting pet owners and veterinarians of the potential for neurologic adverse events in dogs and cats when treated with drugs that are in the isoxazoline class.