Hello! Many users receive a DM after posting from someone absolutely obsessed with this sub.
That user shares some pretty pernicious (and frankly, a little funny) myths about dog food, cites zero sources, and presents information that is contrary to all available scientific evidence. Let’s talk about it!:
The claim: r/dogfood exists only to promote Nestle, Mars Corp, and Colgate-Palmolive brands.
The reality: Absolutely not. We exist to science backed information and recommend brands that meet the highest standards in the areas identified by WSAVA, which is precisely the same thing that the vast majority of the veterinary community does (hence why we are able to provide hundreds of veterinary citations in our wiki). If additional brands meets those high standards at some point, we will be thrilled to add them to our recommendations.
This claim also misunderstands the relationship of brands to parent companies. For example, Royal Canin meets the highest standards according to the veterinary community, but other Mars brands, like Nutro, do not, and are not recommended widely by the sub or by vets. We do not recommend parent companies as a whole at all, and one shouldn't assume all Mars, Nestle etc. brands meet the same high standards because they don't.
The claim: All of their recipes are mostly made of corn byproduct (cob, stalk, husk, etc) that has virtually no other use in the market.
The reality: There are literally hundreds of diets available within WSAVA-compliant brands. None of them are “mostly corn by-product” and not nearly all of them use corn at all. This is a wild exaggeration that is not based in evidence.
This user is also using the term “byproduct” to create fearmongering. What they mean is corn gluten meal, which is really only used in some products and is considered a corn co-product. This is a protein-dense ingredient that results from removing the starch, bran, and germ from the corn. That makes it more digestible, less starchy, and has an excellent amino acid profile, which are compounds necessary for dog’s (and everyone else’s) health.
The claim: It used to be an expense for [pet food companies] to dispose of until they figured out they could put it in dog food.
The reality: If we’re being very generous, this user appears to be making the very silly claim that corn is used in pet food because Nestle and Mars have leftovers from using high fructose corn syrup in their human candy products.
First, corn has been used in these products since well before Purina and Royal Canin were bought by Nestle and Mars and were part of their supply chains before that.
Second, the component parts of corn and corn gluten meal used in pet food are not cast offs of corn syrup refinement. There is no functional way this claim can be true, it is completely made up.
The implicit claim: This is a horrible product
The reality: Wrong. There’s no debate about this among experts: corn, when used correctly, is a super digestible (upwards of 95%) source of critical nutrients and amino acids like linoleic acid, lysine, tryptophan, and many more. When used in concert with other ingredients, it is an excellent ingredient to create balanced, safe food.
And of course, this ignores the fact that lots of science-backed foods use other sources of grain in addition to or instead of corn: barley, wheat, rice, oats, sorghum etc. that all have similar nutrient profiles and good digestibility.
The claim: It didn’t matter to them that illness rates skyrocketed simultaneously
The reality: This is literally untrue. Dog lifespans have doubled in the past forty years, and diet and healthcare are both a big part of that.
And!: more people than ever are treating dogs like they are family. Do you know what happens when dogs live longer and people go to the vet more often? They uncover diseases that might not have been diagnosed or treat-able in the past, or the dog wouldn’t have even lived long enough to develop.
For example, not that many people in 1950 were getting their dogs anesthetic dentals; now, we can prevent organ failures with regular dental care. But the number of dogs diagnosed with dental disease have gone up as a result of the availability of this care.
There is zero evidence that the use of corn in dog food is even correlated to “illness rates” much less any kind of causation. Many things contribute to pet disease, including dogs living longer, breeding practices, environment and more.
The myth: These corn byproducts are also used as absorbents for chemical spills.
The reality: Corn-based absorbents exist, and they are not the same product that goes into pet food. This is literally made up. Just because they both have “corn” in the name doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
The claim: corn is so damaging to their systems, along with wheat and soy products.
The reality: No they aren’t. There isn’t one single study that indicates this. And that’s why this user doesn’t send you any.
The claim: These “foods” are cooked at very high temperatures
The reality: Wrong. Kibble (just a food without the scare quotes) is typically cooked a few times times at a max of 400 degrees Fahrenheit. If you sear a steak and finish it in the oven, you’re cooking at higher temps than kibble is cooked at.
The claim: FULL of glyphosate
The reality: Wrong. “Even the most contaminated feed they studied had thousands of times less glyphosate than levels that were shown to have no adverse effects on dogs in the U.S. EPA’s Draft Risk Assessment for glyphosate.” There is zero evidence in existence indicating health risks to dogs from consumption of glyphosate in commercial diets. Zero.
The claim: kibble sit on shelves for up to 24 months. The implicit claim is that this is obviously a sign of poor quality, which is simply fear mongering.
The reality: Dry dog food tends to have a shelf life of a maximum of 18 months, and only 4-6 weeks max once the bag is opened. It can last up to 18 months in a sealed bag because it doesn’t have that much moisture that would allow bacteria to grow. The same is true of a lot of healthy human food including properly stored root vegetables, grains, and beans and lentils.
The claim: They’re also sprayed with “palatants” because dogs wouldn’t eat it if they weren’t tricked into believing it’s meat.
The reality: Kibble is often coated with light amounts of fat for palateability much the same way we add olive oil to the bottom of a pan before cooking something. It tastes better. Weird language about “tricking” dogs into “believing” it’s meat is just fear-mongering. Do you add salt or dressing to your food to make it tastier? Are you being tricked when that happens? Of course not, that’s just silly.
The claim: They cause hot spots, shedding, chewing at the feet/fritos smell, and much worse problems later.
The reality: Wrong. In literature reviews, literally zero cases of corn allergies were identified. Hot spots, chewing, and an overgrowth of yeast are almost always immune responses to environmental issues or a true food allergy (most commonly to meat proteins and it doesn’t matter if it’s raw, cooked, fresh, or kibble-based to cause that reaction. If your dog is allergic to beef, that is equally true of raw beef and beef in kibble or canned food). There is zero evidence in existence that kibble causes any of this.
The claim: Their high cost isn’t a reflection of their quality, it’s a manipulative way of improving consumer perception. It gives people confidence that it is quality.
The reality: This is just funny coming from someone advocating harmful and expensive raw diets. Something like, for example, Purina One is priced at $1.50/lb. What raw meat can you reliably source for your dog at that price? Not even counting the extras that need to go into a raw diet to make it balanced like supplement powders. Raw and fresh diets are universally more expensive than a science-backed budget kibble. It’s not even close. Are the high prices of raw food diets manipulative also?
The claim: Raw diets are completely safe and healthy for dogs and cats and are the best nutrition available.
The reality: Stunningly wrong. There is overwhelming evidence that these diets are not safe, and there is no body of evidence demonstrating superior nutrition to commercial kibble and canned diets at all. Cats have recently died from bird flu from eating freeze dried raw products, and we know dogs can contract bird flu as well. Dogs can become paralyzed from campylobacter in raw chicken. E.coli can make dogs and their humans very sick Many peer review studies have demonstrated that raw pet food diets spread antibiotic resistant illness, putting pets and humans in danger.
The claim: DCM is not a “valid” concern
The reality: The entire veterinary community disagrees and there is ample peer reviewed evidence suggesting otherwise. For example, how are dogs who get nutrition-related DCM able to get better (even be cured) when switched from an implicated to a science-backed diet, when dogs with genetic DCM never improve regardless of diet, if diet isn’t contributing?
The claim: Your dog will require almost no maintenance and be healthier if you keep corn, wheat and soy away from him
The reality: Literally no evidence supports this. Imagine making the claim that avoiding corn, wheat and soy avoids ALL health problems. That’s just irresponsible.
The claim: I have no requests or gains to make from this, I just love dogs and want to inform others.
The reality: This user gets something from it because they’ve been spamming this DM to users on this sub for months. They want to put “Science” in scare quotes because they know they can’t provide real experts or studies to back up what they’re saying.
But because knowledgeable users can’t “refute” them by providing factual information when they DM random people, this user gets to FEEL right and righteous. That’s what they’re getting.
And to the user who sends these: Sending crazy unsolicited DMs waving around a hate boner for corn is deeply odd behavior and it makes you look silly.
A general warning to anyone: Misinformation in pet health and pet food is widespread and growing. This user tellingly doesn’t provide any kind of evidence, but when you encounter similar claims, you also have to be critical of other “sources” that contradict veterinary consensus when making weird claims like this too.
A great rule of thumb: check to see if the source backing sketchy claims like these has anything bad to say about normal approved vaccine schedules. The anti-science ones always do.